Next Generation 911; Text-to-911; Next Generation 911 Applications, 1799-1822 [2013-00159]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
pentylacetate, in or on red apples and
grapes. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because
this request is to establish a permanent
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance and, therefore, an analytical
method is not required.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Agricultural commodities, Feed
additives, Food additives, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: December 12, 2012.
Sheryl K. Reilly,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution
Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013–00272 Filed 1–8–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[PS Docket No. 11–153; PS Docket No. 10–
255; FCC 12–149]
Next Generation 911; Text-to-911; Next
Generation 911 Applications
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend its rules
by requiring all wireless carriers and
providers of ‘‘interconnected’’ text
messaging applications to support the
ability of consumers to send text
messages to 911 in all areas throughout
the nation where 911 Public Safety
Answering Points (PSAPs) are also
prepared to receive the texts. In
addition, to inform consumers and
prevent confusion, the Commission
proposes to require all wireless carriers
and interconnected text messaging
providers to send automated ‘‘bounce
back’’ error messages to consumers
attempting to text 911 when the service
is not available.
DATES: Comment Date for Section III.A:
January 29, 2013.
Reply Comment Date for Section III.A:
February 8, 2013.
Comment Date for Other Sections:
March 11, 2013.
Reply Comment Date for Other
Sections: April 9, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments to
Federal Communications Commission,
445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC
20554.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Aaron Garza, Attorney Advisor, (202)
418–1175. For additional information
concerning the Paperwork Reduction
Act information collection requirements
contained in this document, contact
Judith Boley-Herman, (202) 418–0214,
or send an email to PRA@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in PS
Docket No. 11–153, PS Docket No. 10–
255, FCC 12–149, released on December
13, 2012. The full text of this document
is available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445
12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554,
or online at https://www.fcc.gov/
document/text-911-further-noticeproposed-rulemaking.
I. Introduction
1. Wireless consumers are
increasingly using text messaging as a
means of everyday communication on a
variety of platforms. The legacy 911
system, however, does not support text
messaging as a means of reaching
emergency responders, leading to
potential consumer confusion and even
to possible danger. As consumer use of
carrier-based and third party-provided
texting applications expands and
evolves, the 911 system must also
evolve to enable wireless consumers to
reach 911 in those emergency situations
where a voice call is not feasible or
appropriate.
2. In this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, we propose rules that will
enable Americans to send text messages
to 911 (text-to-911) and that will
educate and inform consumers
regarding the future availability and
appropriate use of text-to-911.
Specifically, we propose to require all
wireless carriers and providers of
‘‘interconnected’’ text messaging
applications to support the ability of
consumers to send text messages to 911
in all areas throughout the nation where
911 Public Safety Answering Points
(PSAPs) are also prepared to receive the
texts. In addition, to inform consumers
and prevent confusion, we propose to
require all wireless carriers and
interconnected text messaging providers
to send automated ‘‘bounce back’’ error
messages to consumers attempting to
text 911 when the service is not
available.
3. Our proposals build on the recently
filed voluntary commitment by the four
largest wireless carriers—in an
agreement with the National Emergency
Number Association (NENA), and the
Association of Public Safety
Communications Officials (APCO)
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1799
(Carrier-NENA–APCO Agreement)—to
make text-to-911 available to their
customers by May 15, 2014, and to
provide automatic bounce back
messages across their networks by June
30, 2013. The baseline requirements we
propose in this Further Notice are
modeled on the Carrier-NENA–APCO
Agreement, and we seek comment on
whether all carriers, including regional,
small and rural carriers, and all
‘‘interconnected text’’ providers can
achieve these milestones in the same or
similar timeframes. To allow for the
possibility of implementing our bounce
back proposal by June 30, 2013, we are
seeking comment on this portion of the
Further Notice on an accelerated basis.
Moreover, in light of the importance of
these issues, we intend to resolve
promptly the questions we raise in the
remaining portion of the Further Notice
in 2013.
4. Our proposal to add text capability
to the 911 system will vastly enhance
the system’s accessibility for over 40
million Americans with hearing or
speech disabilities. It will also provide
a vital and lifesaving alternative to the
public in situations where 911 voice
service is unavailable or placing a voice
call could endanger the caller. Indeed,
as recent history has shown, text
messaging is often the most reliable
means of communications during
disasters where voice calls cannot be
completed due to capacity constraints.
Finally, implementing text-to-911
represents a crucial next step in the
ongoing transition of the legacy 911
system to a Next Generation 911
(NG911) system that will support not
only text but will also enable consumers
to send photos, videos, and data to
PSAPs, enhancing the information
available to first responders for
assessing and responding to
emergencies.
5. Our proposed approach to text-to911 is also based on the presumption
that consumers in emergency situations
should be able to communicate using
the text applications they are most
familiar with from everyday use.
Currently, the most commonly used
texting technology is Short Message
Service (SMS), which is available,
familiar, and widely used by virtually
all wireless consumers. In the CarrierNENA–APCO Agreement, the four major
carriers have indicated that they intend
to use SMS-based text for their initial
text-to-911 deployments, and we expect
other initial deployments to be similarly
SMS-based.
6. At the same time, we do not
propose to limit our focus to SMS-based
text. As a result of the rapid
proliferation of smartphones and other
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
1800
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
advanced mobile devices, some
consumers are beginning to move away
from SMS to other IP-based text
applications, including downloadable
software applications provided by
parties other than the underlying
carrier. To the extent that consumers
gravitate to such applications as their
primary means of communicating by
text, they may reasonably come to
expect these applications to also
support text-to-911, as consumer
familiarity is vital in emergency
situations where seconds matter.
Therefore, in this Further Notice, we
seek to ensure that consumers
ultimately have access to the same textto-911 capabilities on the full array of
texting applications that they use for
ubiquitous communication—regardless
of provider or platform. We also propose
that service providers who offer SMSbased text-to-911 should have the
flexibility to migrate their customers to
other text-to-911 applications.
7. While our proposal is designed to
accelerate the nationwide availability of
text-to-911, we recognize that
deployment will not be uniform, e.g.,
during the transition period, text-to-911
may be available in certain geographic
areas while it is not available in others,
or may be supported by certain carriers
but not by others. This creates the risk
of consumer confusion about the
availability of text-to-911 as the
transition proceeds—indeed, there is
evidence that many consumers
erroneously believe that they can
already reach 911 by text, and that some
have attempted to do so. Rapid
implementation of the bounce back
notification mechanism that we propose
in this Further Notice is therefore
critical to informing consumers and
lessening potential confusion about textto-911 availability. In addition, we
intend to begin work immediately with
PSAPs, carriers, service providers,
disability organizations, consumer
groups, and others to educate and
inform consumers regarding the
transition, local availability, and
appropriate use of text-to-911.
8. Finally, we emphasize that even as
adding text capability makes the 911
system more accessible and effective in
enhancing public safety, text-to-911 is
and will remain a complement to, rather
than a substitute for, voice 911 service.
The voice 911 system that has been
maintained and improved over decades
remains the preferred means of seeking
help in an emergency in most instances.
Moreover, voice 911 service will
continue to be central and essential to
the 911 system even as we add text,
photo, data, and video capabilities in
the course of migrating to NG911.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
Therefore, even as we take this first
major step in the transition to NG911,
we continue to encourage all consumers
seeking emergency help to access 911 by
voice whenever possible.
II. General Background
9. In September 2011, the
Commission released a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) (76 FR
63257, October 12, 2011), which sought
comment on a number of issues related
to the deployment of NG911, including
potential near-term methods for
delivering text-to-911; whether and how
to prioritize 911 in major emergencies;
how to facilitate the long-term
deployment of text-to-911; the
Commission’s role in deploying text-to911 and other NG911 applications;
consumer education and disclosure
mechanisms; and the relationship
between this proceeding and the
implementation of the Twenty-First
Century Communications and Video
Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA).
A. Text-to-911 Deployments and Trials
10. While some commenters initially
expressed concerns about implementing
near-term text-to-911, both wireless
carriers and public safety entities have
more recently taken significant steps
towards the near-term deployment of
text-to-911, including SMS-based
solutions. In May 2012, Verizon
Wireless announced plans to deploy
text-to-911 capability throughout its
nationwide network in 2013. On
December 10, 2012, Verizon Wireless
commenced its rollout of text-to-911
service in York County, Virginia. In June
2012, AT&T also announced the goal of
launching text-to-911 nationwide in
2013. In addition, the Alliance for
Telecommunications Industry Solutions
(ATIS), an organization consisting of a
large number of wireless and wireline
carriers as well as equipment vendors,
has formed a committee to ‘‘create an
ATIS standard(s) for SMS-to-9–1–1 that
incorporates requirements, architecture,
message flows, and product details.’’
ATIS has targeted completion of these
standards in the first quarter of 2013.
Most recently, as noted above and
described in further detail below, the
four major wireless carriers, Sprint
Nextel, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon,
have entered into a voluntary agreement
with NENA and APCO whereby the
major carriers will provide text-to-911
service by May 15, 2014, to PSAPs who
request the service.
11. Some of these same wireless
carriers have already initiated text-to911 trials in partnership with several
PSAPs to assess the technical feasibility
of text-to-911 and its impact on PSAP
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
operations. Four trials are currently
under way—three of which have
yielded positive results. First, as just
announced, AT&T is ‘‘in the process of
launching a standards-based trial
service for text-to-911 in the state of
Tennessee * * *.’’ Additionally, in June
2009, Black Hawk County, Iowa
partnered with Intrado (a provider of
911 technology solutions) and i wireless
(a T-Mobile affiliate that offers regional
wireless communications service), to
provide text-to-911 service within the
county. According to Black Hawk
County, there have been no delayed or
dropped text messages in the trial, nor
has there been a ‘‘significant increase in
incident volume.’’ Indeed, callers have
benefitted from the technology in
several situations. This includes women
who have been at risk of domestic abuse
who have been able to text for help
undetected by their assailant; children
reporting instances of domestic abuse;
and anonymous reports of imminent
sales of controlled substances. Black
Hawk County has expanded the trial
and now receives text messages from
individuals throughout the state, which
it then relays to the appropriate PSAP.
According to Black Hawk County, the
trial demonstrates that text-to-911
service ‘‘is reliable and * * * saves
lives.’’
12. In August 2011, the City of
Durham, North Carolina (Durham)
initiated an SMS-to-911 trial in
partnership with Verizon Wireless and
Intrado. According to Durham, the
technology has worked reliably.
Durham’s trial suggests that callers will
continue to rely on voice calls to 911
and that concerns about text messages
overwhelming PSAPs may be
unfounded. Durham views the
technology as a ‘‘valuable asset’’ and the
North Carolina Director of the Division
of Services for the Deaf and the Hard of
Hearing stated that ‘‘the significance of
the program cannot be overstated.’’
More recently, the trial was extended
‘‘to accommodate Durham’s additional
outreach to individuals with
disabilities.’’
13. In April 2012, the State of
Vermont (Vermont) initiated a text-to911 trial allowing any Verizon Wireless
subscriber to send emergency text
messages to the Williston, Vermont
PSAP, provided that the text message is
transmitted via a cell tower located
within the physical boundaries of
Vermont. The Executive Director of the
Vermont E911 Board stated that
implementing the trial ‘‘wasn’t * * *
difficult at all’’ and that so far, the trial
has proceeded ‘‘very smoothly.’’
Vermont believes that fears over the
volume of emergency text messages are
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
‘‘overblown’’ and ‘‘remain[s] convinced
that those who can make a voice call
will make a voice call as that is the most
efficient way to communicate in an
emergency.’’
14. Vermont further reports that as of
August 2012, it had received only two
legitimate emergency text messages, but
in both cases emergency services were
able to intervene successfully. In one
case, a life was saved when emergency
personnel were able to thwart an
attempted suicide. In the other case, a
domestic abuse victim was able to
contact police, who then arrived on the
scene and made an arrest. While
Vermont recognizes that some parties
would prefer to wait for a more
advanced text-to-911 solution, Vermont
maintains that the ‘‘individual whose
life we saved and the domestic assault
victim would likely disagree that it is
too soon to have this technology
available.’’ Vermont also indicates it has
experienced some text ‘‘spoofing,’’ but
notes that ‘‘there is nothing about this
new technology that is any more likely
to result in ‘spoof’ contacts than what
we already deal with on the voice side
of the system.’’ Additionally, Vermont
did not experience any problems with
text slang.
15. On October 30, 2012, Vermont
submitted an ex parte filing indicating
that it is maintaining the text-to-911
system past the end of its trial and is
‘‘currently working on enabling a
second Public Safety Answering Point
(PSAP) for redundancy purposes.’’
Vermont states that it ‘‘can report no
negative operational impacts on our
system as the result of the Verizon
trial,’’ but that it needs the
Commission’s assistance in
‘‘encouraging all of the carriers to do the
right thing and enable text-to-9–1–1
now.’’ Vermont concludes by stating
that ‘‘[w]e understand that there are
some concerns both in the PSAP and
industry communities about the timing
of SMS text-to-9–1–1, but so long as the
most common method of texting on
today’s devices remains SMS, we feel it
is important to move ahead and not wait
for the promises that other texting
solutions might provide.’’ On December
3, 2012, Vermont announced that it
would further expand its text-to-911
trial to include Sprint Nextel customers,
in collaboration with the Vermont
Enhanced 911 Board, Sprint Wireless,
and Intrado.
B. Carriers’ Voluntary Commitments
16. On December 6, 2012, APCO,
NENA, Sprint Nextel, AT&T, T-Mobile,
and Verizon, entered into a voluntary
agreement whereby each of the four
major carriers will provide text-to-911
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
service by May 15, 2014, to PSAPs who
request such a service. Under the terms
of the Carrier-NENA–APCO Agreement,
once a signatory carrier begins to offer
text-to-911 service, ‘‘valid PSAP
requests for Text-to-911 service will be
implemented within a reasonable
amount of time of receiving such a
request, not to exceed six months.’’ A
request will be considered ‘‘valid’’ if the
‘‘requesting PSAP represents that it is
technically ready to receive 911 text
messages in the format requested,’’ and
‘‘the appropriate local or State 911
service governing authority has
specifically authorized the PSAP to
accept and, by extension, the signatory
service provider to provide, text-to-911
service (and such authorization is not
subject to dispute).’’ Additionally, no
later than July 1, 2013, the four major
providers will ‘‘voluntarily provide
quarterly progress reports to the FCC,
NENA, and APCO summarizing the
status of the deployment of a national
Text-to-911 service capability.’’
17. Under the terms of the CarrierNENA–APCO Agreement, the major
carriers have also agreed to implement
a bounce-back message capability by
June 30, 2013. The bounce back message
will ‘‘alert subscribers attempting to text
an emergency message to instead dial
911 when text-to-911 is unavailable in
that area.’’
18. The signatories also agreed on
additional measures to implement textto-911 voluntarily. Specifically, the
signatories agree that ‘‘PSAPs will select
the format for how messages are to be
delivered,’’ and that ‘‘incremental costs
for delivery of text messages * * * will
be the responsibility of the PSAP, as
determined by individual analysis.’’
Additionally, the signatory service
providers agree to implement a 911
short code and agreed to implement
text-to-911 ‘‘independent of their ability
to recover * * * associated costs from
state or local governments.’’ The
signatory providers also agree to ‘‘work
with APCO, NENA, and the FCC to
establish an outreach effort to set and
manage consumer expectations
regarding the availability/limitations of
the Text-to-911 service (including when
roaming) and the benefits of using voice
calls to 911 whenever possible, and
support APCO and NENA’s effort to
educate PSAPs on text-to-911
generally.’’
19. Finally, the Carrier-NENA–APCO
Agreement limits the proposed
voluntary text-to-911 solution ‘‘to the
capabilities of the existing SMS service
offered by a participating wireless
service provider on the home wireless
network to which a wireless subscriber
originates an SMS message.’’ Thus, the
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1801
carriers state that under the terms of
their voluntary commitment to deploy
text-to-911 capability by May 15, 2014,
‘‘SMS-to-911 will not be available to
wireless subscribers roaming outside of
their home wireless network,’’ and
‘‘[e]ach implementation of SMS-to-911
will be unique to the capabilities of each
signatory service provider or its
Gateway Service Provider.’’
III. Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
20. In this Further Notice, we seek
comment on issues related to text-to-911
in light of the evolved record, and
bifurcate the comment cycles in order to
deal most promptly with the consumer
notification issue that has the potential
to alleviate near-term consumer
confusion as to the availability of textto-911 both during the course of the
voluntary roll outs that several carriers
have proposed and during the pendency
of the Commission’s proceeding.
Accordingly, comments with respect to
Section III.A will be due 20 days from
publication in the Federal Register, and
reply comments on Section III.A will be
due 10 days thereafter. Comments and
reply comments should address only the
issues posed in this section in order to
provide the Commission with a focused
record on this question. Comments and
reply comment on the remaining
portion of the Further Notice will be
due 60 days and 90 days from
publication in the Federal Register,
respectively. We also seek comment on
Section III.C (Legal Authority) as
relevant to each section in accordance
with the comment timeframe for that
section.
A. Automated Error Messages for Failed
Text-to-911 Attempts and Consumer
Expectations and Education
1. Automated Error Message Proposal
21. Background. In the Notice, the
Commission noted the likelihood that as
text-to-911 is implemented, there will
be instances where despite efforts to
educate consumers, some individuals
will attempt to send text messages to
911 in locations where text-to-911 is not
supported. The Commission observed
that this ‘‘could put consumers at risk
if they were unaware that an emergency
text did not go through or were
uninformed about alternative means of
reaching the PSAP.’’ To mitigate this
risk, the Commission proposed that in
situations where a consumer attempts to
text 911 in a location where text-to-911
is not available, the consumer should
receive an automatic error message or
similar disclosure that includes
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
1802
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
information on how to contact the
PSAP.
22. Public safety commenters
generally support such an automatic
notification requirement. APCO argues
that ‘‘[i]n situations where a consumer
attempts to text 9–1–1 in an area that
does not support this technology, a
standardized auto message should be
immediately returned indicating how to
contact the PSAP and/or that a voice
call is required. The Commission is
urged to work with APCO, NENA and
NASNA to develop best practices and
model responses.’’ The State of
California similarly maintains that ‘‘the
Commission [should] require any
service provider that provides texting
capability to its customers to provide an
immediate, automatic response
(preferably standard nationwide
message) to any text-to-911 stating that
texting to 9–1–1 is not available and
advising the customer to make a voice
call to 9–1–1 in an emergency.’’
23. In their comments in response to
the Notice, commercial mobile radio
service (CMRS) providers acknowledge
the importance of providing notification
of non-delivery to consumers, although
some commenters question whether the
Commission should adopt a notification
requirement. Verizon notes that it
already provides an automated message
when a wireless customer attempts to
send a text message to 911 in a location
where text-to-911 is not available.
Verizon states that its voluntary practice
obviates the need for regulation, but
notes that ‘‘[s]hould the Commission
nevertheless find a requirement is
necessary, language like Verizon’s
would be sufficient and appropriate.’’
Sprint argues that before making any
decision on this issue, the Commission
should first refer the matter to standards
organizations ‘‘to review the technical
aspects associated with delivering an
error message and to develop a
consistent error response message.’’
Finally, textPlus, a software-based text
application provider, notes that it
already ‘‘sends a bounce back message
to users alerting the user that the 911
address is not recognized.’’
24. Most recently, however, the
Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement states
that ‘‘[b]efore the deployment of Text-to911, the signatory service providers will
implement a bounce-back (auto-reply)
message to alert subscribers attempting
to text an emergency message to instead
dial 9–1–1 when Text-to-9–1–1 is
unavailable * * *’’ The Agreement
further states that these providers, the
four major wireless carriers which
include Verizon and Sprint, ‘‘will
implement the bounce-back * * *
message by June 30, 2013.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
25. Discussion. We propose that
CMRS providers and other providers of
text messaging services should be
required to automatically notify
consumers attempting to text-to-911 in
areas where text-to-911 is not supported
or in other instances where the text
cannot be transmitted to the PSAP. In
this respect, there appears to be a clear
benefit to persons in emergency
situations being able to know
immediately if a text message has been
delivered to the proper authorities. This
automatic feedback may be life-saving,
allowing a person in need of assistance
to immediately seek out an alternative.
Providing this type of error message
may also be particularly critical during
the transition to NG911, as the record to
date suggests there are likely to be
numerous instances where consumers
attempt to send text messages to PSAPs
in areas where text-to-911 is not yet
available.
26. We disagree with the assertion
that there is no need for a bounce-back
requirement because certain wireless
carriers already voluntarily provide
automatic error messages when
customers attempt to text-to-911 in areas
where it is not supported. Rather, we
believe that all CMRS providers and
other prospective text-to-911 service
providers should implement this
safeguard so that consumers have the
assurance that they will receive
automatic notification regardless of
which provider they choose. While
consumer education (as discussed
below) may help to mitigate this risk,
the possibility remains that without
such a requirement, a consumer without
knowledge of where text-to-911 is
supported could attempt to send a text
message to 911 and mistakenly believe
that the text has been successfully
transmitted to the PSAP.
27. Moreover, in view of the four
carriers’ commitment in the CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement to implement a
bounce-back message by the end of June
2013, a proactive approach for requiring
automatic error messages appears to be
feasible at a reasonable cost, especially
in comparison to the public safety
benefits that an automatic error message
can provide consumers. The CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement states that the
four major wireless carriers ‘‘will meet
[the] commitments [in the Agreement]
independent of the [carriers] ability to
recover these associated costs from state
or local governments.’’ We believe that
this representation indicates that the
costs for implementing a bounce-back
message are manageable, regardless of
whether such costs are recoverable
under current state or local cost
recovery programs. However, we seek
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
comment on this view, particularly in
regard to the impact that the costs to
meet the bounce-back requirement
might have on small and rural CMRS
providers compared to the public safety
benefits for their subscribers.
28. We seek comment on the
appropriate timeframe for CMRS
providers to implement a bounce back
messaging capability. Whether or not
CMRS providers have developed text-to911 capability, the record to date
appears to demonstrate that it is
technically feasible for them to provide
an automated ‘‘bounce-back’’ text
message in such circumstances
instructing the sender to make a voice
911 call, and that many carriers already
provide this message voluntarily. We
recognize that CMRS providers other
than the four major carriers may need to
address certain technical and
operational issues in order to meet our
proposed notification requirement.
Nevertheless, we believe that a solution
should be implemented as quickly as
possible to avoid the risk of consumer
confusion. Accordingly, we seek
comment on whether it is feasible for all
CMRS providers to provide their
customers with an automatic
notification by the June 30, 2013 date
specified in the Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement. We seek comment on this
timeframe, and any significant technical
issues that would bear on the
achievability of an automatic error
message within that time frame by
small, regional, or rural CMRS
providers.
29. We also propose to require
prospective providers of interconnected
text service to develop an automated
error message capability. In order to
reduce potential consumer confusion
and enhance the ability of consumers to
communicate by text in emergencies
using the applications they are most
familiar with from everyday use, we
believe that the ‘‘bounce-back’’
requirement proposed for CMRS
providers above should also apply, to
the extent feasible, to all providers of
software applications that enable a
consumer to send text messages to textcapable U.S. mobile telephone numbers
and receive text messages from the same
when a user of the application attempts
to send an emergency text in an area
where text-to-911 is not supported or
the provider is otherwise unable to
transmit the text to the PSAP.
30. We clarify that we do not propose
to extend text-to-911 obligations to IPbased messaging applications that
support communication with a defined
set of users of compatible applications
but do not support general
communication with text-capable
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
telephone numbers. We believe it is less
likely that consumers will expect such
applications to support emergency
communications. Nevertheless, we
encourage providers of such messaging
applications to inform their users that
these applications do not support
communication to 911. We seek
comment on this approach. Are there
other ‘‘flavors’’ of third-party text
messaging applications that should not
be included? Why?
31. We seek comment on the
feasibility and cost of third-party
providers to implement such an
automatic notification and whether they
must address any unique technical
issues not faced by CMRS providers in
executing this requirement. We also
seek comment on whether it is feasible
timeframe for third-party providers to
implement the automatic notification
requirement by June 30, 2013, or
whether we should adopt a longer
timetable.
32. We clarify that with respect to
both CMRS providers and
interconnected text providers, our
proposed requirement for automatic
notification to consumers would only
apply to situations where the provider
(or the provider’s text-to-911 vendor)
has direct control over the transmission
of the text message and is unable to
transmit the text message to the PSAP
serving the texting party’s location,
whether due to network congestion, the
inability of the PSAP to accept such
messages, or otherwise. Thus, for
example, a CMRS provider would not be
required to provide automatic
notification where the consumer uses a
text application provided by a third
party that the carrier does not control.
Similarly, notification would not be
required where the provider is able to
transmit the text to the PSAP, but a
failure in the PSAP network results in
the text not being delivered to a 911
operator. We seek comment on our
proposal. We also clarify that we do not
propose to require all text-to-911
providers to use the exact same wording
for their automatic error messages to
consumers. Rather, we propose that
providers would be deemed to have met
our requirement so long as the error
message includes information on how to
contact the PSAP. For example, an
automated message that advises the
consumer to place a voice call to 911
would meet the proposed requirement.
We would, however, encourage carriers
to work with public safety organizations
and consumer organizations, including
disability organizations, on a common
error message text to simplify consumer
education. We seek comment on this
approach.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
2. Consumer Expectations and
Education
33. Background. The Notice sought
comment on how to ensure that
consumers are informed about the
availability and non-availability of textto-911 in specific areas. Specifically, the
Notice sought comment on the expected
costs and benefits of various approaches
to consumer education and disclosure
mechanisms, whether contractual or
cost considerations would deter
consumers from texting or sending
photos or video to 911, and if so,
whether providers or the Commission
should develop practices to remedy that
situation. It also sought comment on
what types of educational programs
could be created to reduce and/or
prevent consumer confusion as text-to911 is deployed in the short term, what
the appropriate role is for the
Commission and for other government
and private sector entities in any public
education effort, and whether other
resources could be developed to help
individuals learn about where text-to911 services are and are not available.
34. Public safety commenters
generally agree that there is a significant
need for a nationwide effort to educate
the public and prevent consumer
confusion while text-to-911 is being
rolled out. For example, the North
Central Texas Council of Governments
(NCTCOG) conducted a recent survey
which noted that approximately onethird of their population believe they
can text 9–1–1 today. APCO argues that
‘‘NG9–1–1 and the capabilities for data
and multimedia will require a focused
and funded public education plan.
Consumers must be made aware of the
limitations of 9–1–1 location accuracy
and they must be cognizant of the role
that they need to play in ‘managing their
emergency.’ ’’ APCO urges the public
and private sector to ‘‘unite to provide
a national campaign targeted at public
education of NG 9–1–1 as it becomes
available,’’ and offers to help ‘‘craft and
disseminate an agreed upon
curriculum.’’ NASNA supports focusing
educational efforts on ‘‘discrete groups
that would receive substantial and
meaningful benefits’’ from near-term
deployment of text-to-911, ‘‘such as the
deaf and hard of hearing.’’ NASNA
suggests these focused educational
efforts ‘‘could provide a model when
texting-to-9–1–1 is deployed on a
permanent basis.’’ NENA ‘‘encourages
the Commission’’ to implement a
campaign to ‘‘provid[e] states, regions,
and localities with template materials
such as canned video, audio, and print
materials’’ that ‘‘could provide
enormous economies of scale * * * and
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1803
help local 9–1–1 systems and centers to
effectively educate the public about the
roll-out of new system capabilities.’’
NENA also contends that ‘‘it is
imperative that any text-to-9–1–1
solution that relies on a digit string or
short code incorporate the digits ‘9–1–
1’ ’’ because ‘‘[d]oing so will help to
minimize consumer confusion and
reduce public education costs.’’
35. Industry commenters also stress
the importance of consumer education
and the need for both public and private
sector participation in education efforts.
CTIA stresses that ‘‘consumer education
requires that federal and state entities,
as well as Public Safety agencies and
consumer representatives, participate in
the consumer education process, and
that the responsibility not be left solely
to the wireless industry.’’ CTIA also
supports the concept presented in the
Notice of developing a consumerfocused map or Web site that would
provide information on the textcapability of specific PSAPs, but notes
that ‘‘the cost of developing and
updating such resources is an issue that
should be considered in developing a
map or similar consumer education
campaign.’’
36. Discussion. We agree with
commenters that educating the public is
critical to the successful roll-out of textto-911 and preventing consumer
confusion. Adding text capability to the
911 system is not likely to occur
uniformly: during the transition period,
the availability of text-to-911 will vary
by area, and the areas of availability will
change over time as the transition
progresses. The Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement recognized this and the
signatory providers agreed to ‘‘work
with APCO, NENA, and the FCC to
develop an outreach effort to set and
manage consumer expectations
regarding the availability/limitations of
the Text-to-911 service (including when
roaming) and the benefits of using voice
calls to 911 whenever possible, and
support APCO and NENA’s effort to
educate PSAPs on Text-to-911
generally.’’ Therefore, as we initiate the
transition, a concerted effort will be
needed to provide the public with
accurate and up-to-date information
regarding where text-to-911 is—and is
not—available.
37. Aside from educating the public
about the availability or unavailability
of text-to-911, education is also
imperative to inform the public about
the capabilities and limitations of textto-911 where it is available, and the
circumstances under which texting 911
is or is not preferable to making a 911
voice call. The public needs to be aware
that text may not provide all of the
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
1804
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
features and functionalities associated
with voice 911 service, such as
automatic location. Similarly, the public
needs to be aware that, while sending an
emergency text may be preferred in
instances where the sender is unable to
communicate by voice (e.g., due to a
speech or hearing disability, or in a
hostage or abuse situation where voice
calling could be dangerous to the caller),
in most other instances, placing a voice
call to 911 will continue to be the most
effective means of communicating with
emergency responders, and therefore
will remain the strongly preferable
option even where text is available.
38. Given the clear need for consumer
education, we direct the Public Safety
and Homeland Security Bureau and the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau to implement a comprehensive
consumer education program
concerning text-to-911, and to
coordinate their efforts with state and
local 911 authorities, other federal and
state agencies, public safety
organizations, industry, disability
organizations, and consumer groups,
consistent with those voluntary
measures taken under the CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement. To assist in
the development of this program, we
seek comment on what educational
tools and resources exist or need to be
developed to combat consumer
confusion as text-to-911 is deployed. To
what degree can current 911 educational
programs be adapted to help consumers
understand the availability, capability,
and appropriate use of text-to-911? How
do we ensure that education and
outreach efforts on text-to-911 are fully
accessible to people with disabilities?
Are there lessons that we can draw from
educational efforts that were conducted
during the deployment of basic 911 or
E911 service? Have other countries
developed text-to-911 education
programs?
39. We also seek comment on whether
CMRS and interconnected text
providers should provide educational
information to their subscribers about
the availability and use of text-to-911.
The signatory providers in the CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement agreed to work
with APCO, NENA and the Commission
to develop an outreach effort to ‘‘set and
manage consumer expectations’’
regarding text-to-911. Should carriers
also provide information regarding the
text-to-911 capabilities of specific
wireless devices that operate on their
networks?
40. Would it be feasible to provide
consumers with the ability to test textto-911 functionality in their devices?
Allowing customers to send simulated
or test 911 messages could have benefits
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
by enabling customers to verify the
availability of text-to-911 and
familiarize themselves with its use.
However, any test mechanism would
need to be configured to avoid
burdening PSAPs with unnecessary text
messages, e.g., by having the carrier or
911 text services provider reply to test
messages with an automated response.
We seek comment on technical and cost
issues associated with developing such
a test capability.
41. Who should bear the primary
responsibility for educating consumers
on the limits of text-to-911? The
Commission? CMRS and interconnected
text providers? Public safety
organizations? Should the Commission
establish a joint effort in conjunction
with CMRS and interconnected text
providers and public safety to
implement an education effort? To what
extent should consumer groups,
including organizations representing the
interests of people with disabilities, be
included in such efforts? Should the
educational effort be federal, regional,
state, or local-level? What safeguards
and measures should be taken to ensure
that education and outreach efforts on
text-to-911 and its limitations are fully
accessible to people with disabilities?
Can the ability to send test text
messages to a PSAP facilitate consumer
education? Could the database
described in Bandwidth.com’s
comments be used to automatically
generate up-to-date consumer-facing
maps of where text-to-911 is available?
B. Comprehensive Text-to-911 Proposals
1. Further Background
42. The Commission has previously
highlighted the popularity and ubiquity
of text messaging, the increasing public
expectation that consumers should be
able to text to 911 during an emergency,
and the importance of text to 911 for
people with disabilities. American
consumers send billions of SMS text
messages per day and more than twothirds of mobile phone users have used
text messaging. Moreover, many of these
consumers are acquiring advanced
mobile devices (e.g., 3G and 4G devices)
that enable them to send text messages
using ‘‘over-the-top’’ software
applications that they install on their
phones and other mobile devices.
Additionally, text messaging will likely
play an integral role in providing future
911 services for persons with
communications disabilities. Hence, any
discussion about the near-term
deployment of text-to-911 must consider
both SMS and currently available, as
well as anticipated, software
applications as potential platforms.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43. The record in response to the
Notice indicates that NG911 will
eventually be capable of supporting the
full range of possible multimedia-to-911
communications, including
transmission of text, photos, video, and
data. However, due to the complexity
and cost of deploying NG911
infrastructure on a national scale, full
deployment of NG911 will not be
uniform and will likely take years. At
the same time, the record indicates that
it is technically feasible for CMRS
providers to implement text-to-911
using existing technologies prior to full
deployment of NG911, as evidenced by
the successful trials and demonstrations
noted above, the University of Colorado
and Intrado technical studies, and the
fact that the four largest nationwide
wireless carriers committed to deploy
text-to-911 capability throughout their
networks by May 15, 2014. Thus, textto-911 could be made available to
virtually all wireless customers in the
near term and delivered to both ‘‘NGcapable’’ and ‘‘pre-NG’’ PSAPs at a
reasonable cost to wireless carriers.
44. As discussed below, we believe
that enabling consumers to send a text
message to 911 in the near term will
substantially improve accessibility to
emergency services, particularly for
people with hearing and speech
disabilities. While we recognize that
text-to-911 based on pre-NG
technologies does not provide the full
functionality of NG911-based text, and
that it has certain limitations in
comparison to voice-based 911, we
believe that these limitations are
outweighed by the substantial public
safety benefits that near-term
implementation of text-to-911 would
yield. In addition, implementing text-to911 in the near term will provide
valuable real-world operational
experience that will help consumers,
PSAPs and service providers plan for
full NG911 deployment. Moreover, the
availability of text-to-911 will provide
incentives for PSAPs to acquire Internet
Protocol (IP) connectivity and NG911capable customer premise equipment
(CPE), which are both critical steps
towards the full deployment of NG–911.
We seek comment on these
observations.
45. We also believe that adopting a
mandatory regulatory framework and
timetable for implementation of text-to911 is necessary. We recognize that
substantial progress has been achieved
through the voluntary initiatives of the
four major CMRS providers, 911 service
providers, and PSAPs described above.
However, we are concerned that
continuing to rely solely on voluntary
measures could result in the four major
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
CMRS providers implementing text-to911 while other service providers—
including regional, small, and rural
CMRS providers and third party
interconnected text providers—do not,
or could lead to non-uniform and
uncoordinated implementation,
inconsistent technological approaches,
and widely varying implementation
timelines to the detriment of consumers.
This in turn could lead to a longer
transition period, increased transition
costs, and increased consumer
confusion regarding when and where
text-to-911 will be supported, what
functionality it will provide, and when
and how consumers should use it where
it is available. We seek comment on this
analysis.
46. Public safety commenters made a
number of ex parte submissions in the
record highlighting the importance of
deploying text-to-911 services. NENA
conducted a comprehensive study and
reported that the majority of its chapters
would support a requirement for
wireless carriers to provide text-to-911
services to their customers. APCO
argued that ‘‘deferring action on the
basic [text-to-911] requirement would
only lead to uncertainty and delay
serious consideration of implementation
issues and requirements.’’ NCTCOG
submitted an ex parte noting that the
public expects to be able text-to-911 and
highlighted that ‘‘a recent market study
* * * showed that approximately 1⁄3 of
our population believe they can text 9–
1–1 today.’’ The Maine Public Utilities
Commission noted that ‘‘increasingly
[persons with disabilities are]
abandoning the use of TTYs for new
technologies such as text messaging that
allow them more flexibility to
communicate with most others except
9–1–1.’’
47. We believe that a mandatory
regulatory framework that builds on
existing voluntary initiatives will
mitigate these risks by providing a
common deadline for the
implementation of text-to-911.
Moreover, while under our proposal
PSAPs will still have the option to
choose whether to accept text messages,
greater uniformity in availability will
enhance PSAP options and make it
easier to justify investments in
upgrades. Uniformity will also promote
coordinated and consistent deployment
by establishing a set of baseline
requirements for all CMRS providers
and third-party interconnected text
providers to meet. Finally, it will
provide greater certainty to consumers
regarding text-to-911 availability,
functions, and usage. Given the these
substantial benefits, we believe that the
public interest is served by requiring
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
CMRS providers and third-party
interconnected text providers to supply
text-to-911 capabilities to their
customers on all text-capable devices.
We seek comment on this analysis and
on possible timelines and technical
options for implementation of these
proposed requirements.
2. Public Safety Benefits of Text-to-911
48. The record indicates that text-to911 can offer significant public safety
benefits, most notably: (1) Widespread
consumer availability and ease of use,
(2) enhanced accessibility to 911 for
people with hearing and speech
disabilities, and (3) an alternative means
of emergency communication for the
general public when 911 voice service is
unavailable or when voice calling could
endanger the caller. We note that textto-911 service may also permit ‘‘texttakers’’ to open multiple texts and
prioritize the most life-threatening
situations first, rather than waiting to
address calls based simply on the order
in which they arrived.
a. Availability and Ease of Use
49. The effectiveness of the legacy
voice 911 system derives in large part
from its ease of use by consumers, and
their familiarity and comfort with voice
calling on everyday devices. It is much
easier for people faced with the stress of
emergency situations to communicate
quickly and effectively when they are
able to use the same technologies that
they use for everyday communications.
This principle, which has long applied
to voice calling, is increasingly true for
communication by text as well. More
than 2 trillion text messages are sent
annually and according to the Pew
Center, more than 7 out of 10 cell phone
users send or receive text messages.
Another report suggests that 91 percent
of smartphone owners actively use SMS.
Thus, expanding existing text
technology to support 911 will provide
the public with a familiar mode of
communication for emergency use.
b. Enhanced Accessibility for People
With Disabilities
50. Currently, approximately 15
percent of the United States population,
or 34.5 million people, have hearing
disabilities and approximately 7.5
million people have difficulty using
their voices. Moreover, there is a strong
relationship between age and reported
hearing loss. For example, 18 percent of
American adults 45–64 years old have a
hearing loss, 30 percent of adults 65–74
years old have a hearing loss, and 47
percent of adults 75 years old or older
have a hearing loss. By 2030, 20 percent
of the population will be over 65 years
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1805
old, substantially increasing the number
of Americans who may need
alternatives to voice communications
when accessing 911. Further, an
increasing number of soldiers are
returning from overseas and are
experiencing traumatic brain injury,
which can result in hearing or speech
disabilities.
51. Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted in 1990
requires PSAPs to provide persons with
hearing or speech disabilities with
direct access to 911 emergency services.
Since 1991, the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) has implemented this
provision by requiring all public safety
agencies to make their telephone
emergency services directly accessible
to TTYs. In the Notice, however, the
Commission explained that people with
hearing and speech disabilities have
increasingly migrated away from
specialized legacy devices, such as
TTYs, and towards more widely
available forms of text communications
because of the ease of access,
availability, and practicability of
modern text-capable communications
devices. While the migration to widely
available texting technologies has had
the unique benefit of bringing prior TTY
users into the mainstream of our
nation’s communications systems, this
transition has also led some commenters
to suggest that it leaves people with
hearing and speech disabilities without
an effective, reliable and direct means of
accessing 911 services in the event of an
emergency.
52. The EAAC noted that individuals
who cannot hear or speak well enough
to communicate with 911 currently have
no direct means of accessing 911 when
mobile other than TTYs. However, with
the vast majority of people with hearing
and speech disabilities having discarded
their TTYs, these devices are no longer
considered a viable means of directly
accessing 911 for this population.
Nevertheless, the EAAC found that
many individuals who are deaf have
service plans that include SMS. One
‘‘key finding’’ of the EAAC is that
‘‘individuals with disabilities should be
able to call 9–1–1 using the same means
they use for everyday
telecommunication.’’
53. At present, individuals with
disabilities who have stopped using
TTYs often have no other option but to
rely on telecommunications relay
services (TRS) to access 911 emergency
services. Text-based relay services
generally require an emergency call to
first go to a communications assistant
(CA), who places the call to the PSAP.
The CA then relays the conversation
back and forth between the caller and
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
1806
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
the PSAP, by voicing all text that is
typed by the person with a disability to
the PSAP call taker and typing back
responses to the caller. As such, many
have criticized TRS as providing only
an indirect means of conveying
information that may result in delays
and translation errors during an
emergency. For example, Consumer
Groups note that IP-Relay, one text form
of TRS, has not been widely embraced
by the deaf and hard of hearing
community for requesting emergency
services because of the relatively long
length of time it takes to reach a relay
operator and then get to the correct
PSAP, the fact that the call will
generally arrive on a non-emergency
line, and the possibility of mistakes by
the CA in the relaying of the call.
54. The record in this proceeding and
the EAAC Report make clear that a
significant number of people with
hearing and speech disabilities will
benefit from the ability to directly send
a text message to 911 from any device
that is text-capable. Advocates for and
individuals who are deaf and hard of
hearing strongly support
implementation of a near-term text-to911 solution and disfavor text relay
approaches due to the risk of delay and
translation errors. Moreover, enabling
direct text messaging to 911 by people
with hearing and speech disabilities
will allow this population to use mass
market communication devices that
have increasingly evolving capabilities.
While disability advocates have
previously been skeptical of SMS-to-911
because it does not support real-time
text, they have given more recent
support to SMS as a viable near-term
solution because of its familiarity and
ease of use for people with disabilities.
Respondents to the EAAC survey
expressed a clear preference for calling
a PSAP using the same technology that
they use on a daily basis. Moreover, 87.7
percent of respondents reported having
used SMS text messaging and 46.1
percent reported having used SMS text
messaging ‘‘almost every day.’’
55. Consumer Groups similarly urge
the Commission to require the
deployment of SMS-to-911 technologies
in the near term as a rapid and practical
means of significantly enhancing
accessibility to the 911 system for
people who are deaf and hard of
hearing. Consumer Groups point out
that because consumers have already
embraced SMS technology, and the vast
majority of wireless providers and
manufacturers support SMS, this
capability may be deployed rather
quickly. Likewise, the Wireless
Rehabilitation Engineering Research
Center (RERC) ‘‘strongly supports’’ the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
incorporation of SMS for the initial
deployment of an NG 911 system.
Similarly, the RERC on
Telecommunications Access notes that
it is imperative for the Commission to
ensure that mobile text communication
is available in the near term to people
who are deaf.
c. Alternative Means of Emergency
Communication for the General Public
56. The ability to send text messages
to 911 will also provide an important
alternative means of emergency
communication to the benefit of the
general public. While the general public
will not need to use text-to-911 services
as frequently as people with hearing and
speech disabilities, experience has
shown that there are situations where
being able to send a text message to 911
as opposed to placing a voice call could
be vital to the caller’s safety. For
example, in the 2007 shooting incident
at Virginia Tech, a number of students
attempted unsuccessfully to send SMS
text messages to 911 so as not to be
heard and located by the shooter.
Similarly, in the Black Hawk County,
Iowa text-to-911 trial, text has been used
in domestic and child abuse situations
in which the victim feared that the
suspect would overhear the call to 911.
Additionally, the Vermont trial further
demonstrated text-to-911’s efficacy in
cases involving suicide and domestic
violence.
57. Text-to-911 can also provide a
lifeline when voice networks are
impaired or congested. In large-scale
disasters, for example, circuit-switched
landline and mobile networks may
become overloaded, making it difficult
to place a 911 voice call. Conversely,
SMS and IP-based text messages to 911
can still be transmitted because text
consumes far less bandwidth than voice
and may use different spectrum
resources and traffic channels. As TCS
notes, ‘‘[i]n situations in which a high
9–1–1 call volume results in blocked
calls to the PSAP or situations in which
the wireless infrastructure capacity is
impacted such that placing voice calls is
difficult or impossible, SMS
communications to a PSAP may provide
the only reasonable communications
method to emergency services.’’ TCS
further notes that according to data it
had drawn from its CMRS provider
customers, attempts to text-to-911 are
made regularly and the number of
attempts to text-to-911 during the recent
Hurricane Sandy spiked sharply. TCS
also highlights that unlike phone calls
that are be handled on a ‘‘first-in, firstaddressed’’ basis without any ability to
know which queued up calls are
priorities, a single ‘‘text-taker’’ could
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
open more than one text and ‘‘attempt
to address the more urgent and lifethreatening emergencies with greater
priority.’’ In addition, the University of
Colorado finds that ‘‘text users and call
takers compose and read messages
offline and only use communication for
the moment that the message needs to
be sent [which] saves valuable network
resources during network congestion.’’
Thus, people in disaster areas may still
be able to send text messages to 911
even if they cannot place a voice call.
3. Technical Feasibility, Timing and
Cost of Text to 911
58. Balanced against the abovedescribed benefits of text-to-911, we
believe that the record indicates that
text-to-911 is technically feasible and
can be achieved in the near term at a
reasonable cost to PSAPs, CMRS
providers, and providers of
interconnected text. We disagree with
commenters who argue that the
Commission should not act until NG911
is fully deployed. As we note above, it
will likely take a number of years to
deploy NG911 on a national scale. The
record also indicates that it is
technically feasible for CMRS providers
to implement a text-to-911 solution
using existing technologies prior to the
full deployment of NG911, and we
believe the same should be true for
interconnected text providers. Thus,
text-to-911 could be made available to
virtually all wireless customers in the
near-term and delivered to both ‘‘NGcapable’’ and ‘‘pre-NG’’ PSAPs at a
reasonable cost to wireless carriers. In
this respect, we also believe that
investments made now by PSAPs and
carriers to support text-to-911 can be
leveraged to support NG911
deployments, and accordingly
constitute building blocks towards an
IP-based emergency network. For
example, while some PSAPs may
choose to implement text-to-911
through existing equipment, such as
TTY terminals, other PSAPs may choose
to upgrade their equipment to receive
text messages in a manner that will also
support additional data in an NG911
environment.
59. We disagree with MetroPCS’s
argument that any text-to-911
obligations should ‘‘only be imposed on
the largest nationwide carriers because
the costs of increased regulations are
more easily borne by the largest
carriers.’’ There is no evidence that the
cost of implementing a text-to-911
solution will be substantial enough to
warrant limiting the obligation to the
largest carriers. In fact, the first text-to911 trial in the nation was conducted in
Black Hawk County, Iowa by a small
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
wireless carrier. Further, we believe that
exempting certain wireless carriers from
a text-to-911 obligation solely on the
basis of size would create additional
consumer confusion, because
consumers would still be unsure of
whether their wireless carrier provides
text-to-911 service or not. We seek
comment on these views.
60. Based on these findings and
consistent with the Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement, we propose that all CMRS
providers and interconnected text
providers should be required to
implement the capability to support
text-to-911 in their networks. Because
SMS is the most common texting
technology in use today, and virtually
all wireless consumers already have
access to it and are familiar with its use,
we expect that most CMRS providers
will initially support SMS-based text-to911. At the same time, we recognize that
CMRS providers may eventually seek to
migrate customers away from SMS to
other text applications, such as IP-based
real-time text or Rich Communication
Services (RCS). Therefore, we do not
propose to require CMRS providers to
support SMS-based text-to-911 so long
as they provide their customers with at
least one pre-installed text-to-911 option
per device model that works across the
provider’s entire network coverage area.
We propose to allow CMRS providers to
select any reliable method or methods
(e.g., mobile-switched, IP-based) for text
routing and delivery. We seek comment
on this proposal.
a. Impact on PSAPs
61. As noted above, public safety
commenters generally support the
implementation of text-to-911 in the
near term as a first step in the transition
to NG911. NENA notes that SMS is ‘‘the
prevailing consumer text mode in the
United States,’’ and that in addition to
being the most widely available
platform, SMS ‘‘is also the most
interoperable, working between nearly
every device on every network in the
United States.’’ NENA also notes that
Verizon’s text-to-911 announcement
indicates that ‘‘SMS-to-911 capabilities
can be technically feasible.’’ NATOA,
NACo, and NLC state that they support
the use of SMS as ‘‘an interim solution
for text-based communication to 911,’’
since it is ‘‘particularly beneficial to
people with disabilities, including
people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or
have speech impediments.’’
62. Black Hawk County highlights
that it has not encountered any textrelated problems during its trial and
notes that ‘‘SMS text-to-911 is reliable
and available, as clearly demonstrated
in our project.’’ BRETSA and the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
Colorado 9–1–1 Task Force state that
‘‘the key advantage of text messaging to
9–1–1 will be in facilitating
communications with the PSAP by
speech and/or hearing impaired
individuals. Text messaging is generally
preferred by the speech and hearing
impaired community over TTY
communications because it is more
portable, ubiquitous, and convenient.’’
Vermont argues that fears over the
volume of emergency text messages are
‘‘overblown’’ and ‘‘remain[s] convinced
that those who can make a voice call
will make a voice call as that is the most
efficient way to communicate in an
emergency.’’
63. While public safety entities
generally regard near-term text-to-911 as
feasible, some express concern about the
potential cost of implementation and
the impact on PSAP resources if text-to911 results in a heavy influx of text
messages. The State of California states
that ‘‘[s]hort-term implementation of
text-to-911 will likely increase the time
and resources required for PSAPs to
process information as compared to
handling voice calls.’’ APCO states that
‘‘[w]hile SMS may be appropriate as a
near-term solution for limited
circumstances, it is not a long-term
solution for the general public.’’
NASNA opposes encouraging widespread deployment of short-term SMSbased solutions ‘‘[u]ntil such time as
text-delivery standards are developed,
adopted and compliance is assured.’’
Finally, BRETSA and the Colorado 911
Task Force argue that ‘‘devoting funds
to an interim solution for text messaging
may mean that less funds will be
available in the future for a more
effective solution, once NG9–1–1 has
been deployed and PSAP systems
updated to take advantage of NG9–1–1.’’
64. Based on the record in this
proceeding, the Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement, and the success of the
various technology trials noted above,
we believe that the implementation of
text-to-911 will not impose an undue
burden on PSAP operations. First, under
our proposed framework, PSAPs will
retain the discretion to decide whether
to accept text messages. Thus, if a PSAP
chooses not to accept text messages,
there would be no requirement for it to
do so and therefore no cost to the PSAP.
We believe that PSAPs are able to best
understand their local technological and
financial situation, and determine
whether it is technically and financially
feasible or desirable to implement textto-911 in their service area. While we
share BRETSA and the Colorado 911
Task Force’s funding concerns, we
believe that PSAPs will be in the best
position to understand their ongoing
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1807
NG911 funding needs. Additionally, as
much of the architecture for text-to-911
service can be leveraged for NG911, we
do not expect that funding text-to-911
will divert resources from funding
future NG911 services. Second, as
discussed in greater below, for PSAPs
that elect to accept text messages, we
propose several options for the receipt
of text messages, including options that
will impose minimal costs on the PSAP.
Third, while we recognize that the
technology trials noted above are
limited in scope, the trial results suggest
that PSAPs are not likely to become
overwhelmed with text messages.
b. Impact on CMRS Providers and
Interconnected Text Providers
65. In response to the Notice, CMRS
commenters initially opposed a nearterm text-to-911 mandate and argued
that the Commission should instead
focus its efforts on long-term NG911
solutions. These commenters cited a
variety of concerns with implementing
text-to-911 prior to the full development
of next-generation solutions, including
technical limitations, limited monetary
resources, reliability and security, issues
with consumer education, and liability
protection. Notwithstanding some of
these concerns, however, the four major
wireless carriers voluntarily committed
to deploy text-to-911 capability
throughout their nationwide networks
by May 15, 2014.
66. Further, the record indicates that
the cost for CMRS providers to
implement a text-to-911 solution will be
minimal. Indeed, according to cost
estimates that were submitted into the
record by Intrado and Bandwidth.com,
the total cost for all CMRS providers to
implement this solution will be
approximately $4 million annually.
Based on our review of the record, the
Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the
cost estimates provided by vendors, and
the success of the text-to-911 trials and
demonstrations, we believe that it is
feasible for all CMRS providers to costeffectively implement a text-to-911
solution in the near term. We seek
comment on this view. We also seek
comment below on the appropriate
timetable for implementing our proposal
in order to address the concerns raised
by CMRS commenters. We also seek
comment on the cost for interconnected
text providers to implement a text-to911 solution. More specifically, what
are the likely initial and ongoing costs
for interconnected text providers? For
routing purposes, can interconnected
text providers use the same service
providers as CMRS providers? If so,
would the cost be similar? Would a perincident service model be feasible for
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
1808
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
smaller interconnected text providers?
Are there any other potential costs that
the Commission should consider? To
that end, we seek quantitative
information for our cost-benefit
analysis.
4. Cost-Benefit Case Study
67. States and localities collect
approximately $2 billion in 911 fees and
taxes annually for the operation and
support of the legacy voice-based 911
system. Most states have reported to the
Commission that ‘‘they used the fees or
surcharges that they collected for 911/
E911 service solely to fund the
provision of 911/E911 service.’’
Dependent on the regulatory mechanism
set forth in each statute, states distribute
funding either to the carriers directly, or
to a designated state or local entity
which then reimburses carriers. As we
have noted previously, the highest
vendor estimate submitted in this record
regarding the cost to carriers to
implement nationwide text-to-911
capability is $4 million annually, a mere
fraction of the cost of the current voice
911 system.
68. Balanced against this low cost, the
implementation of text-to-911 will
provide substantial benefits both for
people with disabilities and the general
public in a variety of scenarios. While
not all of the benefits associated with
these scenarios are quantifiable, we
have conducted a cost-benefit analysis
of the potential impact of text-to-911 in
the area of cardiac emergencies—a
category that represents less than 10
percent of 911 calls but for which
detailed statistical information is
available. Even when we limit our
analysis of benefits to this subset of total
emergencies, we find that the potential
benefits of text-to-911 for just this one
category of 911 calls outweighs the costs
of implementing text-to-911 for all
carriers and PSAPs. We seek comment
on our case study analysis below.
69. Our analysis is based on a 2002
study of cardiac emergencies in
Pennsylvania that found adoption of
E911 to be associated with
improvements in the health status of
patients, particularly those with cardiac
conditions. That Cardiac Study shows
that, when precise location information
is provided contemporaneously with a
911 call, response time is notably
shortened and correlated with an over
34 percent reduction in mortality rates
from cardiac arrest within the first 48
hours following the incident.
70. The life-saving benefits
demonstrated in the Cardiac Study
provide a useful reference point for
assessing the importance of timely and
effective 911 communication to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
response time and positive outcomes for
medical emergencies. We therefore have
extrapolated from the Cardiac Study to
determine the likely number of cases in
which text-to-911 might extend similar
benefits to people with hearing and
speech disabilities who cannot use
voice to contact 911, but who would be
able to communicate location
information if text were available.
71. Based on the Cardiac Study, we
calculate that for the voice-based 911
system as a whole, improved response
time resulting from delivery of precise
location information saves
approximately 4,142 lives annually
nationwide. To determine the
proportionate benefit for people with
disabilities that would result from
availability of text-to-911, we consider
only the 0.7 percent of the population
with the most severe hearing and speech
impairments (0.5 percent for extreme
hearing difficulty and 0.2 percent for
extreme speech difficulty). Assuming a
proportional number of 911 calls in
cardiac emergencies from this
population, and limiting our calculation
to intentional wireless calls in which
the hearing- or speech-disabled person
cannot rely on a speaking person to
make the 911 call, we calculate that
text-to-911 would save approximately 7
lives annually in cardiac emergencies.
Using an accepted statistical value-oflife model developed by the U.S.
Department of Transportation, we
estimate the value of each life saved to
be $6.2 million. This yields a total
benefit of $43.4 million annually for
cardiac victims alone, or more than ten
times the highest estimated cost of the
rules proposed herein.
72. We emphasize that the benefits
calculated above for cardiac
emergencies represent only a subset of
the benefits that will be generated by
text-to-911. The record reflects
numerous other benefits that are less
quantifiable but that may be similarly or
even more substantial. Black Hawk
County and Vermont have cited
concrete examples where text-to-911
enabled callers to reach 911, but could
not make a voice call for safety reasons.
Similarly, the record includes
additional compelling evidence that
text-to-9–1–1 may provide significant
benefits in disaster scenarios due to the
relatively high reliability of SMS
messages and the relatively low amount
of network capacity required to deliver
an SMS message. These benefits, though
not specifically quantifiable, provide
compelling evidence that the aggregate
benefits of text-to-911 will significantly
exceed the specific benefits quantified
here—and will be generated at no
additional cost.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5. Reliability of Text-to-911
73. In response to the Notice, several
commenters raise concerns about the
reliability of text-to-911, and
particularly SMS-based text. 4G
Americas notes that ‘‘it found no shortterm solution that did not exhibit
limitations with respect to capability,
performance, and impacts to users,
network operators and/or PSAPs.’’ CTIA
states that ‘‘SMS was not designed to be
used as an emergency service’’ and
urges the Commission to focus on the
deployment of ‘‘advanced 9–1–1
emergency communications services in
emerging wireless technologies.’’ Other
commenters similarly assert that certain
technical aspects of SMS limit its
reliability for emergency
communications. Among the factors
cited are that SMS (1) is one-way rather
than session-based; (2) lacks delivery or
performance guarantees, and may not
inform the sender when a text is not
timely delivered; (3) does not prioritize
emergency messages; (4) does not assure
that multiple messages will arrive in the
sequence they were sent; (5) does not
support 911 location technologies that
are used for 911 voice calls; and (6)
lacks protections against transmission of
spurious or fraudulent 911 messages.
74. Technical Studies. In response to
the Notice, two commenters conducted
technical studies which present
evidence that SMS-to-911 is as reliable
as voice, and in some instances, may be
even more reliable than voice. In the
first study, researchers at the University
of Colorado tracked several hundred
SMS text messages and found that ‘‘the
reliability of text messages and mobile
phone voice calls, in terms of data loss,
are very similar.’’ The University of
Colorado study ‘‘found that all of the
text messages sent were received by the
cellular network, resulting in a ‘data
loss rate’ of 0% and a reliability level of
100%.’’ In addition, the University of
Colorado study noted that ‘‘[o]ther
researchers have tested the reliability of
* * * SMS * * * and found that the
‘data loss rate’ over several thousand
messages was less than 1%, resulting in
a reliability level of 99%. The statistical
implication is that large samples might
experience a small percentage of data
loss, but overall the reliability for text
messages is similar to that of voice
calls.’’ 4G Americas criticizes the
University of Colorado’s findings and
notes that the ‘‘study was executed in an
academic environment with a predetermined technology and setting. The
study did not involve a large number of
subscribers, and hence, no real-world
traffic conditions.’’
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
75. The University of Colorado study
also found that text messaging is
actually more reliable than voice
communications when a weak signal
exists, ‘‘such as when the caller is in the
mountains, in the midst of high rise
buildings, inside a building, under a
collapsed building following an
earthquake or explosion, or in a trunk of
a car [or] closet.’’ The University of
Colorado notes that ‘‘[c]ommunication
at the edge of coverage can be sporadic,
allowing only momentary windows of
communications coverage that are not
long enough to support a voice call but
a short burst of a text message can get
through. In addition, some
implementations of SMS automatically
keep trying to send a text message until
a transmission window opens.’’
76. Intrado conducted the second
technical study, in which it sent ‘‘tens
of thousands of actual SMS messages
[from] a simulated PSAP to a mobile
device and from a mobile device to the
simulated PSAP.’’ The study found that
‘‘by using techniques such as the 9–1–
1 SMSC [short message service center],
SMS can be used to create a very
reliable and timely 9–1–1
communication infrastructure.’’
According to Intrado, ‘‘90% [of the text
messages] were delivered within 3–4
seconds.’’
77. Discussion. While 4G Americas,
CTIA, Motorola, and several other
commenters provide anecdotes about
the limited reliability of SMS-to-911, the
University of Colorado and Intrado
conducted the only two technical
studies on this issue. Notably, both of
these studies found that the reliability of
SMS-to-911 is comparable to voice, and
in some instances, even more reliable
than voice. Further, we believe that the
success of the existing trials, the CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement, and the
continued rollout of text-to-911 services
throughout the nation demonstrate that
industry has already overcome many of
the reliability deficiencies that were
originally cited in the comments. While
SMS was certainly not designed for
emergency communications, we
disagree with T-Mobile’s claim that
‘‘SMS is fundamentally unsuited for
emergency communications.’’ Indeed, a
life was saved in Vermont as a direct
result of Verizon’s SMS-to-911 trial.
Additionally, we note that, for callers
who are deaf or hard-of-hearing,
reaching 911 by voice may not be
possible at all, so that even a
mechanism that is not perfectly reliable
can provide significant benefit. For
callers who are not deaf, text-to-911
provides an additional way to reach
PSAPs, thus increasing the overall
probability of obtaining help. Finally,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
we believe that our proposal for wireless
carriers to provide a ‘‘bounce-back’’
capability will further mitigate
reliability concerns. Accordingly, given
the significant benefits of text-to-911
service, we do not believe that
reliability concerns should delay the
deployment of text-to-911. We seek
comment on this analysis.
6. Carrier and Third Party Non-SMSBased Text-to-911 Applications
78. As technology and consumer
habits evolve, consumer expectations
also change and the need to meet those
expectations in times of emergency
must also evolve. As more consumers
use SMS-substitutes, whether provided
by the underlying carrier or by a third
party, it is important that we evaluate
ways to alleviate consumer confusion
and promote regulatory parity. We note,
however, that despite this proliferation
of SMS-substitutes, the Carrier-NENAAPCO Agreement is limited to SMS
services provided by the signatory
providers.
79. Accordingly, as discussed below,
we are seeking comment on a variety of
issues associated with non-SMS
messaging applications, including
‘‘over-the-top’’ texting applications
provided by third-parties. In this regard,
our focus is on those applications that
are most like SMS and therefore most
likely to be the subject of a consumer
expectation that they may reach 911,
namely those two-way texting
applications that allow text messages to
be sent to any U.S. phone number,
irrespective of the hardware utilized to
send that message.
80. Background. In the Notice, the
Commission sought comment on nonSMS text-to-911 alternatives, including
IP-based messaging, real-time text, and
downloadable software applications.
While noting the potential advantages of
SMS as an interim solution, the
Commission also sought comment on
how to encourage the development of
non-SMS options that could provide
more flexibility and functionality to
consumers.
81. Commenters generally support
allowing carriers and service providers
to develop alternatives to SMS-based
text. NENA notes that smartphone-based
text-to-911 applications could lower
costs for both consumers and PSAPs
and that ‘‘because 9–1–1 text
applications would run on smartphones
or advanced devices, their call streams
could, in some instances, operate
outside the normal 911 voice call path.’’
The University of Colorado observes
that ‘‘there are an increasing number of
smartphone applications and other SMS
short cuts that provide for pre-stored
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1809
and automatically composed messages,
such as contact information for an
epileptic having a seizure, or to include
location [GPS] coordinates.’’
Bandwidth.com notes that applications
can be ‘‘specifically geared toward
enhancing the ability of the deaf and
hard of hearing to access public safety
via texting.’’ LR Kimball states that
‘‘[s]oftware applications that can
integrate into the legacy 911 system
should be the first choice in the short
term to allow for more complete access.
* * * [and] should be developed in a
way that makes use of services currently
in use at PSAPs.’’ AT&T urges the
Commission to avoid imposing text-to911 regime that would force carriers to
continue supporting SMS-based text-to911 after SMS has become
technologically obsolete or
economically uncompetitive.
82. In the Notice, the Commission
also observed that consumers are
acquiring more advanced mobile
devices (e.g., 3G and 4G handsets) that
enable them to install ‘‘over-the-top’’
software applications. In the Notice, we
sought comment on whether text-to-911
requirements should apply to both
CMRS and non-CMRS providers alike.
The Commission sought comment on
the feasibility of using general texting or
911-specific software applications to
send text messages to PSAPs. The
Commission noted that both providers
and third parties, including vendors that
provide services and equipment to
PSAPs, could develop such
applications.
83. In response to the Notice, CTIA
and AT&T noted the proliferation of
‘‘over-the-top’’ software applications
and highlighted the need for the
Commission to implement technology
neutral regulations that apply equally to
both carrier-provided and non-carrierprovided texting solutions. CTIA stated
that ‘‘it is * * * unclear how a national
SMS-based interim solution would work
in the context of over-the-top
applications or other non-carrierprovided SMS solutions’’ and
emphasizes that ‘‘the [FCC] must * * *
consider the severed link between the
licensed CMRS service provider and the
emergency calling capabilities, such as
location accuracy, of end-user devices
and over-the-top applications.’’ AT&T
notes that: (1) ‘‘limiting the mandate of
[t]ext-to-911 services to SMS services
provided by telecommunications
carriers would be short-sighted, and
thus a great disservice to the general
public[;]’’ (2) a ‘‘mandate that is
exclusive to the SMS platform fails to
account for the fact that such services
are experiencing both declining
revenues and usage due to the
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
1810
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
proliferation of free [‘over-the-top’]
texting applications[;]’’ and (3) ‘‘[t]he
FCC must adopt a technologicallyneutral solution that applies equally to
carrier-provided SMS services and
competitive alternatives to avoid
distorting the marketplace to the
detriment of one service provider.’’
AT&T further explains that ‘‘failing to
include [‘over-the-top’] substitutes in
the mandate may cause significant
customer confusion regarding the
accessibility of emergency services via
text message’’ and that ‘‘applying this
mandate on a technology neutral basis
ensures that the effectiveness of the
mandate does not depend on the
dominance of any platform or on the
market position of any group of service
providers.’’ Additionally, AT&T notes
that ‘‘including [‘over-the-top’]
providers in the scope of a text-to-911
mandate would assist ongoing industry
standards work by encouraging [those]
providers to participate in * * *
developing a text-to-911 solution.’’
84. On the other hand, several entities
express concerns about the Commission
extending text-to-911 obligations to
‘‘over-the-top’’ software applications.
Sprint notes that ‘‘[m]any * * * overthe-top messaging providers are
relatively small and likely may not have
the financial resources to achieve PSAP
integration.’’ Sprint also asserts that ‘‘it
would not be able to control * * *
third-party commercial offerings nor
influence how wireless consumers
utilize such applications.’’ Further,
Sprint highlights the limitations
associated with ‘‘over-the-top’’ software
solutions, including the ability to
‘‘obtain location information associated
with a particular call.’’ Similarly, U.S.
Cellular states that it prefers text-to-911
to ‘‘be considered in the context of
native SMS,’’ and that it does not favor
covering over-the-top text applications.
U.S. Cellular also notes that ‘‘on some
devices, SMS messages up-convert to
MMS, and delivery of those converted
messages to PSAP[s] would need to be
further explored.’’ Motorola Mobility
maintains that ‘‘any regulatory
responsibility for over-the-top text-to911 applications, including collection of
precise location information, must rest
only on the application developer.’’
85. The VON Coalition argues that
‘‘there is no public policy justification
for extending SMS-to-911 obligations to
over-the-top IP text applications’’ and
maintains that ‘‘[t]here is no evidence
that customers using over-the-top
applications expect that they can use
these applications to contact emergency
services.’’ The VON Coalition contends
that ‘‘[i]t seems highly unlikely that a
wireless user with both an SMS
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
functionality and an over-the-top
messaging application would in some
instances choose to open an application,
sign in and then send an ‘SMS’ to a
PSAP rather than simply using the
wireless phone’s SMS capability that (a)
the customer likely uses on a near-daily
basis, and (b) is readily available to the
user without opening any application or
providing sign-in information.’’ The
VON Coalition highlights that ‘‘over-thetop messaging applications, which are
dependent on the availability of
broadband Internet access, are less
reliable than a wireless carrier’s SMS
text services that require no broadband
availability and, moreover, very little
`
bandwidth vis-a-vis voice or other data
communications on a wireless carrier’s
network.’’ The VON Coalition also notes
that ‘‘there currently are no location
solutions for over-the-top applications—
neither for routing a message to the
appropriate PSAP nor to provide
sufficient location information
associated with the caller.’’ The VON
Coalition adds that ‘‘[b]ecause an overthe-top message is provided over
another provider’s network—whether a
wireless carrier, wireline carrier or a WiFi hotspot—there is no real-time
location information associated with the
over-the-top message.’’ Accordingly, the
VON Coalition ‘‘recommend[s] that
over-the-top IP-based messaging and
text services that rely on the mobile
operator’s data network should be
excluded from an interim [text-to-911
requirement] as they are precisely the
type of communications capability for
which NG911 is intended.’’
86. More recently, the VON Coalition
reiterates these points and further
argues that the lack of user location
information is an impediment to
enabling routing of an emergency text to
the appropriate PSAP. Moreover, they
argue that implementing an interim
solution directed at text-to-911 may
impact the transition to NG911, or may
stifle innovation and alter business
models. Should the Commission pursue
a 911 obligation for IP-based SMS
providers, the VON Coalition urges that
any obligation be limited to ‘‘two-way’’
over-the-top SMS, so that a texting
customer is able to receive a bounceback message where a PSAP is unable
to receive text-to-911 messages.
87. Similarly, Apple urges the
Commission, in addition to considering
the jurisdictional and technical issues
associated with implementing a text-to911 obligation for over-the-top text
messaging application providers, to
limit its proposals to those applications
that (1) are installed on a device that
determines the user’s location using a
technology that meets the enhanced 911
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
requirements set forth in Section
20.18(h) of the Commission’s rules; and
(2) independently enables the user to
send text-based messages to and receive
text-based messages from any valid
North American Numbering Plan
telephone number via the short message
service protocol.
88. Discussion. As smartphone
technology and applications proliferate,
wireless consumers increasingly have
the ability to send and receive text
messages using downloadable software
applications. These applications may be
provided to the consumer by the
underlying wireless service provider or
by third party software providers, and
may use one of a variety of text delivery
methods. For example, some text
applications deliver text to mobile
telephone numbers over the carrier’s
existing mobile-switched SMS network,
while other applications deliver text
over IP data networks, and some
applications support both delivery
methods and can also deliver MMS
content. Several over-the-top
applications hold themselves out as
competitive alternatives to CMRSprovided SMS services. In addition,
some software providers have
developed 911-specific software
applications for smartphone users that
are designed specifically to support
communication by text and other media
with PSAPs that install and operate the
application. As the Wall Street Journal
recently noted, the volume of SMS text
messages per month sent by consumers
has recently dropped 3 percent, with the
most likely explanation of this ‘‘major
shift in mobile communications’’
attributable to migration of these
messages to over-the-top messaging
platforms. Another study suggests that
over 45 percent of smartphone owners
use an SMS alternative such as over-thetop messaging apps in addition to or in
lieu of traditional SMS. And while other
analysts predict that SMS will continue
to grow globally through 2016, they
further predict a large scale drop-off in
SMS in favor of over-the-top
applications thereafter.
89. This trend towards development
and use of new third-party text
applications has significant implications
for the implementation of text-to-911.
While SMS is currently the most widely
available and heavily used texting
method in the U.S., and is likely to
remain so for some time, consumer
access to and use of third-party text
applications is likely to increase over
time. As this occurs, some consumers
may choose to use such applications as
their primary means of communicating
by text, relying less on SMS or possibly
bypassing SMS entirely. In that
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
eventuality, consumers that become
familiar with software applications by
using them for everyday non-emergency
communications will be increasingly
likely to prefer them for emergency
communications. Moreover, consumers
faced with the pressure of an emergency
may attempt to use the most familiar
application available to contact 911
even if they are not certain that it will
work.
90. Given this emerging trend for
technology and consumer behavior
patterns, we believe it is important to
consider whether certain third partyprovided text applications and carrierprovided applications should be subject
to text-to-911 obligations, particularly
those that hold themselves out as
substitutes for carrier-provided SMS
services. In choosing to use a particular
text application from a variety of
available options, consumers may not
even be aware of the identity of the
party providing the application or the
nature of network technology that the
application uses to deliver the text.
Thus, imposing text-to-911
requirements based on the identity of
the provider or the delivery technology
could lead to some applications
supporting text-to-911 while other
applications that are functionally
similar from the consumer perspective
do not support text-to-911. In this
respect, it may be important to consider
consumer expectations both now and in
the future as a matter of public safety,
as well as to consider means to promote
competitive neutrality to ensure that
like services are treated comparably,
thereby avoiding arbitrage created by
artificial regulatory distinctions.
91. As discussed above, consumers
now have access to a wide variety of
tools that allow the sending of text
messages on almost any computing and
communication device. However, as the
VON Coalition notes, consumers may
not have the expectation to send text
messages to 911 from all possible text
applications, and some of these may
face significant technical difficulties in
delivering text messages to the correct
PSAP, possibly depending on the
platform the application is running on.
Thus, we divide text applications into
two broad categories, namely (1)
interconnected text applications that
use IP-based protocols to deliver text
messages to a service provider, which
the service provider then delivers the
text messages to destinations identified
by a telephone number, using either IPbased or SMS protocols, and (2) noninterconnected applications that only
support communication with a defined
set of users of compatible applications
but do not support general
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
communication with text-capable
telephone numbers. We seek comment
on applying text-to-911 obligations on
the former category, but not the latter.
92. In this respect, we seek comment
on the characteristics of interconnected
text applications to which text-to-911
obligation should apply, if adopted. As
described above, Apple suggests a twoprong approach to determine whether
an interconnected text application
would fall within the Commission’s
proposed text-to-911 obligations. The
VON Coalition similarly suggests that
over-the-top applications should be
‘‘two way’’ in order for a text-to-911
obligation to attach. Are either of these
definitions appropriate? Are they too
limited? Do these characteristics
conform to consumer expectations? For
example, if a text messaging application
only provides for ‘‘outbound-only’’
messaging to a U.S. telephone number,
would a consumer still expect to be able
to reach 911? Are there other
characteristics that we should take into
account?
93. We also propose to treat providers
of such non-SMS text applications
similarly to CMRS providers with
respect to the obligation to provide textto-911 capability to their users within a
defined timeframe. By enabling text
communication with any text-capable
mobile number, these ‘‘interconnected
text’’ applications provide effectively
the same functionality that SMS
provides currently. Therefore, we
believe the same text-to-911 obligations
should apply on a technology-neutral
and provider-neutral basis. We seek
comment on this proposal generally and
on the issues discussed below.
94. We also seek comment on whether
third-party interconnected text software
providers face technical issues or
obstacles in the implementation of textto-911 that could affect the extent to
which a text-to-911 requirement may be
implemented, or the timeframe for such
implementation. Commenters agree that
flexibility in implementation is
important to reduce the burden of
deploying text-to-911. This is likely to
be particularly important for
interconnected text applications, since
they are often designed by smaller
enterprises. Do third-party software
providers face difficulties assuring that
their application works reliably on all
hardware platforms, operating systems,
and operation system versions
supported by the application? Do these
applications have access, possibly after
asking for user permission, to cell tower
and/or geo location information via
platform application programming
interfaces? Can applications warn users
that disabling location functionality for
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1811
an application may interfere with the
ability to send text-to-911 messages?
Could operating system providers
facilitate the access to location
information for emergency calling and
texting purposes? If the text application
cannot obtain location information,
under what circumstances can the
application deliver the text message to
a gateway and have the gateway service
determine the approximate location of
the message sender? Can texting
applications determine the cellular
telephone number of handsets to help
locate the mobile device?
95. To facilitate discussion, we posit
three possible implementation choices
and invite comment on their respective
advantages and disadvantages, as well
as descriptions of additional options.
The descriptions are meant to be
illustrative, and are not meant to limit
how implementers achieve the goal of
providing text-to-911 to users of their
applications.
96. The first implementation option
leverages the SMS application
programming interface (API) offered by
common smartphone operating systems.
The interconnected text application
would use the API to deliver any text
message addressed to 911, while using
the application-specific mechanism for
all other, non-emergency messages. It
appears that many applications already
separate messages by destination, as
they often only deliver messages using
Internet protocols for certain countries
or regions.
97. In the second option, text-to-911
messages are handled the same as any
other text message and delivered to the
SMS gateway provider chosen by the
application vendor. The gateway
provider then delivers those messages to
text-capable destinations. This gateway
provider handles text messages
addressed to 911 and delivers them to
the location-appropriate PSAP, possibly
with the assistance of a third party 911
message routing service.
98. Finally, in the third option, textto-911 messages are delivered via
Internet application layer protocols to
PSAPs, without being converted to SMS
along the way, using NG911 protocol
mechanisms. The messages can be
delivered to PSAPs either by the
provider of the text messaging
application or a third-party service
provider.
99. Are there alternative mechanisms
that might be used? Which of these
methods provides advantages or
disadvantages for the application
developer? For the PSAP? For the
consumer? Which options are more
likely to transition seamlessly to NG911,
or provide a foundation that can be
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
1812
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
leveraged by one or more of the parties
in the NG911 delivery chain? How do
these options differ in terms of
implementation complexity, reliance on
technologies not readily available, cost
to the text messaging provider or
reliability?
100. Commenters have previously
expressed concerns about the lack of
access by the third party provider to
consumer location information
associated with a text-to-911 message,
impacting both the ability to deliver the
text message to the appropriate PSAP
and the ability to locate the consumer
seeking assistance. Which of the options
described above facilitate delivery of
location information? Are there other
technical mechanisms or commercial
arrangements that would facilitate the
ability of a third party text application
to ascertain the location from which the
text originated? Can a requirement to
provide text-to-911 precede such an
ability? Can privacy controls utilized by
some applications to limit access to
location information interfere with the
ability to identify the origination of a
text-to-911 message? Are there other
privacy concerns that need to be
considered, or is it reasonable to assume
that a person sending a text to 911
implicitly waives such privacy
concerns? Can third party text
messaging applications bypass any
privacy safeguards when 911 is the
destination short code?
7. Timetable for Text-to-911
Implementation
101. We seek comment on whether all
CMRS providers and interconnected
text providers should be required to
implement the capability to support
text-to-911 throughout their networks by
May 15, 2014. In light of the public
safety benefits of making text-to-911
available to consumers regardless of
carrier or service provider, and the
benefits to both PSAPs and consumers
from coordinated implementation, we
believe it may be desirable for all CMRS
providers, including small and rural
carriers, and all interconnected text
providers to implement text-to-911
capability in their networks on a
timetable comparable to the four largest
wireless carriers. Setting a single,
uniform deadline for all providers
would arguably facilitate coordination
among text-to-911 providers, vendors,
and PSAPs, reduce the likelihood of
non-uniform deployment, and provide
consumers with a clear expectation of
when text-to-911 will be supported
regardless of which carrier or service
provider they use.
102. We seek comment on this
approach. Would a uniform timetable
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
help minimize consumer confusion? Is
such a uniform timeframe feasible, or
are there factors that could prevent
small, rural, and regional CMRS
providers and third-party
interconnected text providers from
implementing text-to-911 in the same
timeframe as the four major CMRS
providers? For example, some parties
have posited that the relatively small
size and lack of resources for certain
applications developers would limit
their ability to comply with a text-to-911
requirement. Is this accurate? Are there
other factors we should consider?
103. The Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement also states that once a
‘‘valid’’ PSAP request is made for
delivery of text messages, ‘‘service will
be implemented within a reasonable
amount of time of receiving such
request, not to exceed six months.’’
Further, a request for service will be
‘‘considered valid if, at the time the
request is made: (a) the requesting PSAP
represents that it is technically ready to
receive 9–1–1 text messages in the
format requested; and (b) the
appropriate local or State 9–1–1 service
governing authority has specifically
authorized the PSAP to accept and, by
extension, the signatory service provider
to provide, text-to-911 service (and such
authorization is not subject to dispute).’’
Are these reasonable conditions? Is six
months an appropriate timeframe? What
steps does a CMRS or interconnected
text provider have to take to add a PSAP
to its list of text recipients and how
much time are such steps likely to take?
Should the same timeframe apply for
both CMRS providers and
interconnected text providers? Should
this timeframe become shorter over time
as the process for responding to PSAP
requests becomes more established and
routine?
8. 911 Short Code
104. Background. Short codes for
mobile-switched text messaging are
administered by the Common Short
Code Administration (CSCA) and are
typically five-digit or six-digit numbers.
In the Notice, the Commission sought
comment on whether a national short
code for text-to-911 should be
designated by the Commission, a
standards-setting body, or some other
entity. The Commission also asked how
the short code should be designated or
implemented.
105. Commenters in general agree that
the Commission should establish and
reserve the digits ‘9–1–1’ as a national
short code for text-to-911. Most notably,
under the Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement, the four largest wireless
carriers committed to ‘‘implement a ‘9–
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1–1’ short code that can be used by
customers to send text messages to 9–1–
1.’’ APCO notes that ‘‘text-to-9–1–1
should involve the digits ‘9–1–1’ and
not a different short code’’ and that
‘‘[a]ny short code other than 9–1–1 will
eventually need to be phased out as
regions are able to accept text solutions
direct to the PSAPs via NG911.’’ NENA
urges that ‘‘any short code implemented
must be uniform across carriers and
geographic or political boundaries.’’
King County states that ‘‘a national short
code, ideally using the digits 9–1–1,
should be designated by Congress or the
[FCC], similar to the designation of 911
as the national emergency number by
Congress.’’ AT&T argues that the
Commission should ‘‘establish and
reserve a standardized SMS short code’’
and that it ‘‘makes sense to use some
variation of the present abbreviated
dialing pattern 9–1–1 for this purpose.’’
Intrado believes that ‘‘an appropriate
text solution should use the digits 911.’’
Motorola, however, cautions that there
may be technical issues associated with
using 911 as an SMS short code in some
devices, and that ‘‘end users
experiences in trying to use 911 as an
SMS short code may be seriously
lacking.’’ Nevertheless, Motorola notes
that it ‘‘has released well in excess of
100 mobile devices and software
combinations in the U.S. market within
the past three years, none of which has
been tested for support of 911 as a SMS
short code.’’
106. Discussion. The evolution of 911
as the national emergency telephone
number has resulted in the digits ‘‘9–1–
1’’ being widely and uniformly
associated with emergency
communication in the United States.
American consumers are familiar with
dialing 911 to place an emergency voice
call, and children are routinely taught to
dial 911 as the way to summon help
from police, fire, and ambulance
service. This widespread use and
consumer recognition of 911 makes it
logical and highly desirable to
implement 911 as a standard three-digit
short code for sending emergency text
messages to PSAPs wherever and
whenever feasible.
107. Moreover, the general technical
feasibility of using 911 as a text short
code appears to be established. In each
of the text-to-911 trials that have
occurred to date, subscribers of the
participating CMRS providers have been
able to use 911 as the short code for text
messages to participating PSAPs.
Moreover, under the Carrier-NENAAPCO Agreement, the four largest
wireless carriers committed to
‘‘implement a ‘9–1–1’ short code that
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
can be used by customers to send text
messages to 9–1–1.’’
108. Given the apparent technical
feasibility of a 911 short code and the
widespread consumer recognition of
911 as the standard emergency number
in the U.S., we do not believe that other
CMRS providers should encounter any
substantial issues with using a 911 short
code. We therefore propose that
whenever technically feasible, all CMRS
providers should configure their
networks and text-capable cell phones
to support 911 as the three-digit short
code for emergency text messages sent
to PSAPs. We seek comment on this
proposal. We also seek comment on
whether there are any text-capable cell
phones being sold in the United States
that are incapable of using the digits 911
as a short code. If so, what are those
devices and how many of them are in
use? To what extent, if any, could such
devices be modified or updated by a
consumer or wireless retail store to
support a three-digit code? In the event
that certain devices cannot be so
modified or updated, should we
designate an alternate short code (e.g., a
five-digit code) that such devices could
use?
109. With respect to interconnected
text applications, we recognize that
‘‘short codes’’ per se may not be
appropriate conceptually for non-SMS
texting. We therefore seek comment
about whether there are any technical
obstacles or other issues associated with
such applications using the three-digit
identifier 911. How can these issues, if
any, be addressed? Are they specific to
particular applications, or to IP-text
messaging generally? Should
interconnected text applications provide
an icon indicating the ability to reach
text-to-911?
9. TTY Compatibility Requirement for
Wireless Services and Handsets
110. The Commission first adopted a
requirement for wireless carriers to be
capable of transmitting TTY calls to 911
services in July 1996. Although the
initial deadline set for implementation
of this requirement was October 1, 1997,
efforts to find a technical solution to
support TTY (Baudot) technology over
digital wireless systems ended up taking
years of research and testing. As a
result, the Commission granted multiple
extensions of time for entities to comply
with this mandate, ultimately requiring
compliance by June 30, 2002. At that
time, per the 1996 Order, wireless
service providers were required to
upgrade their digital networks to be
compatible with TTYs and handset
manufacturers were required to provide
a means by which users could select a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
TTY mode on their phone’s menus.
However, by the time these changes
were implemented, new digital
technologies, more mobile and less
expensive, had caused most TTY users
to migrate away from use of these
devices as their primary communication
mode.
111. It is for this reason that the
CVAA included a provision for the
EAAC to consider deadlines ‘‘for the
possible phase out of the use of currentgeneration TTY technology to the extent
that this technology is replaced with
more effective and efficient technologies
and methods to enable access to
emergency services by individuals with
disabilities.’’ ATIS points to this
provision in recommending that the
Commission waive the TTY
compatibility requirement for new
wireless handsets where such handsets
support the ATIS INES Incubator
recommended solution. Specifically,
ATIS argues that ‘‘[w]hile PSAPs and
wireless networks should support TTY
services for the foreseeable future, the
TTY requirement for wireless handsets
may be a redundant communication
modality for future wireless handsets
that support the recommended ATIS
INES Incubator solution.
112. As we noted earlier, the EAAC
survey confirmed the declining use of
TTYs by people with disabilities as well
as the need for new forms of accessible
communications to reach 911 services—
including text and video—by persons
who have hearing or speech disabilities.
The decline in TTY usage is also
reflected in the steep reduction in the
number of minutes of TTY-based TRS
over the last several years. At the same
time, an estimated 100,000 users make
approximately 20,000 emergency calls
annually using TTY. In other words,
while it is true that TTY use is
declining, TTY still provides an
invaluable, real-time 911 service for its
users. Additionally, no similar robust
products exist for mobile and IPnetworks, where the expected lifetime
of a product is about two years as
opposed to TTY’s ten year expected
lifetime. Finally, users of TTY may not
wish to switch to a new communication
mechanism with which they are not
familiar.
113. Therefore, we seek further
comment on whether the Commission
should sunset the TTY requirement for
new handsets, and if so, what criteria
should be adopted before such action is
taken. If the Commission does sunset
the TTY requirement for new wireless
handsets, should it do so only
contingent upon a wireless texting
capability? The EAAC recommended
that the Commission lift the TTY
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1813
requirement only for those handsets that
have ‘‘at a minimum real time text or,
in an LTE environment, IMS
Multimedia Telephony that includes
real-time text.’’ In addition, the EAAC’s
2012 Subcommittee on TTY Transition
concluded that ‘‘[c]onsistent
implementation of a well-defined ‘TTY
replacement’ with higher functionality
real-time text, simultaneous voice and
better mobility can fill an important
need in accessible communication for
user to user calls, relayed calls and 9–
1–1 calls.’’ We seek comment on these
EAAC recommendations concerning the
removal of the TTY requirement.
Should the ubiquitous use of SMS,
alone or with other forms of text
capability, be a factor in determining
whether to lift the TTY requirement? Or,
does the real-time nature of TTY
communication make it fundamentally
different from SMS, such that SMS is
not a valid replacement for TTY-capable
handsets?
10. Routing and Location Accuracy
114. In the Notice, the Commission
sought comment on how to ensure that
text messages to 911 include accurate
location information for routing to the
appropriate PSAP and for determination
of the sender’s location by the PSAP.
The record developed in response to the
Notice indicates that it is technically
feasible to route text messages
originated on CMRS mobile switched
networks to the appropriate PSAP based
on the cell sector from which the text
originated. Therefore, we propose to
require CMRS providers (and their
associated text-to-911 vendors) to use
cell sector location to route 911 text
messages originated on their networks
to the appropriate PSAP. We also seek
comment on any technical or
informational challenges for third party
interconnected text providers with
respect to determining caller location
and providing the appropriate routing.
We do not propose at this time to
require provision of E911 Phase II
location information in conjunction
with 911 text messages, although we
encourage its provision where
technically feasible. We discuss these
proposals in greater detail below.
a. Routing of Text Messages to the
Appropriate PSAP
115. Background. While the CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement does not speak
specifically to routing issues, the
signatory providers agreed to provide
text-to-911 on an interim ‘‘best-efforts’’
service subject to a valid PSAP request.
However, the provision of text-to-911
under the Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement is limited to ‘‘the capabilities
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
1814
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
of the existing SMS service offered by a
participating wireless service provider
on the home wireless network to which
a wireless subscriber originates an SMS
message.’’ Many commenters, including
public safety entities, argue that any
text-to-911 solution must be capable of
routing text messages to the appropriate
PSAP based on the sender’s location.
APCO states that ‘‘any solution must
provide PSAP call routing capability
that is as good as or better than what is
being deployed today.’’ BRETSA and
the Colorado 9–1–1 Task Force agree
that ‘‘[t]he location of the caller must be
available for the purposes of routing the
call to the correct PSAP.’’
116. Focusing on SMS-to-911, some
CMRS commenters contend that there
are technical difficulties in routing SMS
messages to the correct PSAP. The
Blooston Rural Carriers claim that
‘‘current SMS standards do not support
automated routing to the PSAP or
automated location information.’’ Sprint
Nextel states that ‘‘location information
is not included with SMS text messages
and would not be available for PSAP
routing.’’ 4G Americas argues that ‘‘SMS
* * * provides no location
information—not even a cell tower—so
the originating network may not
accurately route the message to the
correct PSAP. Because the lack of
location and session information, false
messages can be easily spoofed * * *
without the PSAP detecting the spoof.’’
117. However, commenting vendors
counter that even if SMS was not
initially designed to support automatic
routing to PSAPs, it is technologically
feasible to add the capability to route
SMS text messages to a specific PSAP
based on the sender’s location.
According to Intrado, SMS messages can
be routed to the appropriate PSAP by
adding a Text Positioning Center (TPC)
to the existing wireless network. Intrado
states that the TPC will ‘‘function like
a [Mobile Position Center] associated
with wireless voice calls’’ and that
‘‘[u]pon a mobile device’s initial text-to911, the TPC will determine the
appropriate PSAP to which to route the
text request for assistance.’’ Intrado also
notes that the ‘‘routing determination
will be based upon the location of the
cell sector to which the mobile device
is connected.’’ TCS similarly states that
SMS messages can be routed to the
appropriate PSAP ‘‘[b]y combining
existing location technologies with
existing SMS protocol capabilities.’’ The
VON Coalition also notes routing
challenges for third-party over-the-top
application providers, which may not
have direct access to caller location.
118. Discussion. Verizon and TCS
have indicated that they will use coarse
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
location as the basis for PSAP routing
determination in their deployment of
text-to-911. Moreover, according to the
Tennessee Emergency Communications
Board (TECB), ‘‘[t]he TECB would not
have agreed to host the pilot [with
AT&T] had it not included the
capability for location information to
travel with the text. The Tennessee pilot
will include a texting solution that
includes rough location information.’’
The coarse or rough location
information as referred to by Verizon
and TECB is the equivalent to the
location of the cell sector from which
the wireless 911 call is made—or
generally E911 Phase I information
under the Commission’s E911 rules.
Given the apparent technical feasibility
of cell sector location and its actual use
in text-to-911 trials to date, we propose
that CMRS providers be required to
route text messages automatically to the
appropriate PSAP based on the cell
sector to which the mobile device is
connected. We also propose to define
the ‘‘appropriate’’ PSAP presumptively
for text-to-911 routing purposes to be
the same PSAP that would receive 911
voice calls from the same cell sector.
However, we recognize that in some
instances, state or local 911 authorities
may wish to have text messages routed
to a different PSAP from the one that
receives 911 voice calls from the same
location (e.g., to have all 911 texts
within a state or region routed to a
single central PSAP rather than to
individual local PSAPs). Therefore, we
propose to allow designation of an
alternative PSAP for routing purposes
based on notification by the responsible
state or local 911 authority. We seek
comment on these proposals. We also
seek comment on whether there are any
technical obstacles or cost factors that
could make it more difficult for some
CMRS providers, such as small or rural
carriers, to support automated routing of
text messages to the appropriate PSAP.
119. We also seek comment on
specific technical or informational
challenges that third-party over-the-top
messaging applications providers may
face with respect to assessing caller
location and the associated PSAP.
Apple, for example, suggests that textto-911 obligations should only attach for
third-party text messaging applications
where the applications is installed on a
phone that meets the Commission’s
location accuracy requirements. Will
this be sufficient to enable such
applications to accurately route a 911
call to the appropriate PSAP? Are there
other agreements or protocols that
would be necessary between the thirdparty application provider and the
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
underlying carrier to ensure appropriate
routing? What would these entail?
120. Several commenters noted that
spoofing could compromise the
accuracy of location-based routing of
SMS text messages to PSAPs. We note,
however, that the proposed systems use
systems not under the control of the
caller to query for cell tower location.
SMS messaging uses the same
mechanism as calls to provide the
originating number to the network, and
thus, there is no unique attribute of text
messaging that leaves it open to
spoofing. We also note that the potential
for spoofing already exists for VoIP calls
to 911. As Vermont indicates with
regard to its text-to-911 trial, ‘‘there is
nothing about this new technology that
is any more likely to result in ‘spoof’
contacts than what we already deal with
on the voice side of the system.’’
Accordingly, we seek comment on
whether the potential for spoofing text
messages is any greater than the
potential for spoofing VoIP calls. Are
there any actions that the Commission
could take to minimize the risk of textbased spoofing?
b. 911 Location Accuracy Requirements
121. Background. In the Notice, the
Commission noted that some parties
had expressed concerns about the
inability of SMS to provide the sender’s
precise location. The Commission
sought comment on ways to overcome
this limitation. Specifically, the Notice
asked whether it is technologically
feasible for the recipient of an
emergency SMS text message to query
for the texting party’s location using the
phone number provided The CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement does not
specifically address location accuracy
issues. However, the Carrier-NENAAPCO Agreement does limit the
provision of text-to-911 to ‘‘the
capabilities of the existing SMS service
offered by a participating wireless
service provider on the home wireless
network to which a wireless subscriber
originates an SMS message.’’
122. Commenters indicate that, while
it is feasible to use cell sector location
to route emergency texts to the
appropriate PSAP, it may be more
difficult for CMRS providers to provide
more precise location information in
connection with text messages. Neustar
notes that ‘‘some wireless operators use
network based location determination
mechanisms that depend on the handset
being in a voice call to receive enough
measurement data to determine the
location of the caller accurately. Such
networks could not be expected to
respond with high resolution location
information for texters. This will be true
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
for any SMS to 911 solution.’’ On the
other hand, TCS indicates that its
system would use ‘‘the same location
technologies and strategies used today
for 9–1–1 voice calls to both route the
text message to the appropriate PSAP,
and for delivering a more precise
location of the sender to PSAP
personnel.’’ TCS notes, however, that
‘‘the carrier’s 9–1–1 location platform
may not be able to provide location
outside of a 9–1–1 voice call’’ and that
‘‘coarse [location] may be the only
available location for initial service
launch.’’ The VON Coalition expresses
similar concerns with respect to
providers of ‘‘over-the-top’’ text
messaging applications in terms of their
inability to access user location
information.
123. Discussion. The record in this
proceeding indicates that providing
precise location information in
connection with text messages is
technically feasible but could involve
significant changes and upgrades to
existing SMS-based text networks. We
are therefore concerned that it could
initially be overly burdensome to
require CMRS providers to comply with
the Commission’s Phase II E911 location
accuracy rules when transmitting text
messages to 911. While we recognize the
importance of providing precise
location information to PSAPs, we
believe that the benefits of enabling
consumers, particularly consumers with
hearing and speech disabilities, to send
SMS-based or non-SMS-based text
messages to 911 outweigh the
disadvantages of being unable to
provide precise location information.
Accordingly, we propose that the
Commission’s Phase II E911 location
accuracy requirements not apply to the
initial implementation of text-to-911.
Nevertheless, we encourage the
voluntary development of automatic
location solutions for text-to-911 that
provide at least the same capability as
Phase II location information for voice
calls to 911, even if the location solution
does not use the same underlying
location infrastructure. For example,
messaging applications could transmit
location information that is available on
handsets using the data channel.
Further, applications that use IP-based
message delivery may also be able to
include location information obtained
via a mobile device API along with the
text message. We also seek comment on
whether operating system vendors or
CMRS providers can facilitate the
delivery of more precise location for
interconnected text providers. Are there
any other factors that the Commission
should consider in regard to location
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
delivery for interconnected text
providers?
c. Roaming
124. Background. Roaming enables
wireless consumers to use mobile
devices outside the geographical
coverage area provided by their home
network operator. In the Notice, the
Commission asked whether it is
technically feasible to determine the
originating location of an emergency
text message in all situations or whether
it is feasible only in situations where the
customer is not roaming. As noted
above, the Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement does not provide text-to-911
capability to wireless subscribers
roaming outside of a subscriber’s home
wireless network. Because sending and
receiving texts while roaming involves
two networks, the consumer’s home
network and the visited roaming
network, roaming may create issues for
text-to-911 because of the greater
technical complexity of routing the
message to the correct PSAP based on
the consumer’s location. In the nonemergency context, when a wireless
consumer sends an SMS message while
roaming on a visited network, the
visited network passes the text message
via designated signaling links to the
user’s home network, which in turn
sends the text message to its final
destination.
125. Several commenters address textto-911 in the context of roaming
customers. In considering vendor
proposals for text-to-911 solutions,
NENA contends that applicable location
requirements must be met regardless of
whether a consumer initiates or
continues a text-to-911 string through
the consumer’s home network or a
roaming partner. Similarly, APCO
argues that when a device roams to a
visited network, 911 text messages must
be capable of remaining connected with
not only the PSAP, but also the specific
call taker. T-Mobile voices a number of
concerns about roaming, stating that
‘‘SMS-to-911 does not work when
roaming.’’ T-Mobile further notes that
‘‘SMS for a T-Mobile customer roaming
on another carrier’s network remains
supported by T-Mobile’s network and
messaging infrastructure, rather than by
the carrier providing roaming. However,
T-Mobile will not have location
information when its subscriber is
roaming, and thus can neither
determine whether a roaming subscriber
is in an area that supports text-to-911
nor route the 911 text to the appropriate
PSAP.’’ U.S. Cellular stresses ‘‘the need
for the FNPRM to include a discussion
regarding the need for requirements to
address customers sending texts to 911
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1815
while roaming outside of their carrier’s
network and for the resulting need to
address interoperability across carrier
networks.’’ Finally, Sprint Nextel urges
the Commission to refer technical
considerations like roaming to technical
working groups and standards-setting
bodies for further discussion.
126. Discussion. We agree with NENA
and APCO that it is critical for
consumers who are roaming to have the
ability to text-to-911 during an
emergency, and we further note that
current voluntary measures do not
provide for text-to-911 service while a
subscriber is roaming. Accordingly, we
seek comment on whether both the
home and visited network operators
must cooperate to support the delivery
of the text to the appropriate PSAP
serving the sender’s location when a
consumer sends a text message to 911
while roaming. We also seek comment
on T-Mobile’s assertion that its network
is unable to collect location information
on a roaming subscriber and is thus,
technically limited from providing textto-911 for roaming subscribers. Could
the visited network intercept text-to-911
messages and determine the mobile
device location? What technical and
economic obstacles need to be
addressed in order to provide text-to911 service to consumers? How can
these obstacles be overcome? We also
seek comment on whether the same
approach should apply to international
roamers while they are located in the
United States.
11. PSAP Options for Receiving Text-to911
127. There appears to be general
agreement that the NG911 architecture
offers an IP standards-based interface
protocol that supports the delivery of
text messages, regardless of the
technology used by the mobile device.
While some PSAPs are currently
NG911-capable, or soon will be, many
other PSAPs will not be NG911-capable
for an extended period of time, limiting
their options for handling text messages
in the interim. Thus, in order to
implement text-to-911, particularly on a
nationwide basis, the Commission must
take the disparate capabilities of PSAPs
into account. Accordingly, we propose a
set of near-term options that would
enable all PSAPs to accept text messages
transmitted by CMRS or interconnected
text providers, regardless of whether the
PSAPs are NG911-capable. This
proposed approach provides nonNG911-capable PSAPs with the
flexibility to handle text messages in the
near term without requiring PSAPs to
fund significant upfront investments or
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
1816
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
upgrades. We seek comment on each
option and the proposal as a whole.
a. NG911-Capable PSAPs
128. We propose that text-to-911
service providers deliver text messages
to NG911-capable PSAPs using a
standardized NG911 protocol, such as
the NENA i3 protocol. This will ensure
a consistent format for delivery of text
messages to all NG911-capable PSAPs.
We seek comment on this proposal.
Should the current NENA i3 protocol be
the single protocol used for delivery of
all text messages to NG911-capable
PSAPs? How should we account for
future releases of NENA i3 that may
support additional protocol interfaces?
b. Non-NG911-Capable PSAPs
129. For non-NG911-capable PSAPs,
several technical options are available
that could be used for receipt of text
messages. For its part, the CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement allows PSAPs
to ‘‘select the format for how messages
are to be delivered.’’ We propose that
non-NG911-capable PSAPs be allowed
to choose among several options, and to
designate a preferred option and one or
more fallback options.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
(i) Web Browser
130. Under this option, a PSAP would
receive text messages via a web browser
installed in the PSAP (typically at one
or more terminals used by PSAP calltakers) and connected to a third-party
service provider. Verizon Wireless and
TCS have stated that with respect to
Verizon’s roll-out of text-to-911, they
will offer PSAPs the ability to receive
text messages using the web browser
approach. TCS states that it has
‘‘demonstrated a D–IP SMS client
application that runs in a web browser
and gives a PSAP call-taker who has
connectivity to the IP-messaging
network the ability to receive, view, and
respond to the SMS 9–1–1 call.’’ This
approach will require the PSAP to have
Internet connectivity, but not full
NG911 capability.
131. We seek comment on the web
browser approach. Because many PSAPs
already have Internet connectivity even
if they are not NG911-capable, we
believe that this approach would offer
PSAPs a cost-effective alternative for
receiving text messages without having
to upgrade to NG911. We seek comment
on what costs, other than Internet
access, a PSAP would have to incur
when implementing a web browser
solution. For example, T-Mobile
contends that TCS’ web browser
application would require PSAPs to
upgrade their CPE. Is this accurate, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
if so, what would the nature and cost of
the required upgrade?
132. We also seek comment on how
the web browser option should be
implemented in a multi-party
environment where multiple web
browser options and applications may
be available to both PSAPs and text-to911 service providers. For example, it is
possible that individual text-to-911
service providers could offer different
web browser applications to the same
PSAP, requiring the PSAP to either
support all of the offered applications or
to request that the providers use a
common application. Alternatively,
neighboring PSAPs could select
different web browser applications from
one another, requiring a text-to-911
service provider serving both PSAPs to
support multiple applications or to
request that the PSAPs choose a
common application.
133. As a practical matter, we expect
that many of these issues can be
resolved through development by
vendors of standards-based
interoperable web applications that
enable CMRS providers, interconnected
text providers, and PSAPs to choose
single-source solutions rather than
having to support multiple solutions.
Nevertheless, we seek comment on how
such issues should be resolved where
CMRS providers, interconnected text
providers, and PSAPs cannot agree on a
common web browser solution.
Specifically, if the PSAP chooses to
receive text messages via web-based
delivery, under what circumstances
should CMRS or interconnected text
providers be obligated to accommodate
the PSAP’s choice of web browser
application? If the PSAP uses a service
provider (‘‘text service provider’’) to
render text messages to a web browser,
as appears likely based on the service
trials, a problem would arise only if two
CMRS or third-party text providers use
different service providers on their end
to route text-to-911 messages. In that
scenario, we proposed to allow the
PSAP to designate its text service
provider as the recipient of text
messages under two conditions. First,
the PSAP text service provider must
accept text messages using industrystandard protocols, such as the NENA i3
standard. Second, the PSAP text service
provider must not charge the CMRS or
interconnected text provider a fee for
delivering such messages. We seek
comment on this proposal.
(ii) Text-to-Voice Gateway Centers
134. Under this option, a PSAP would
receive text messages via a gateway
center where emergency-trained
telecommunicators would translate
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
between text and voice. The gateway
center would operate in a manner
similar to a telematics call center of the
kind that telematics providers such as
OnStar use to handle emergency calls
from their subscribers and transmit such
calls to 911. Telematics providers use
cell-site location to determine the
caller’s location, match the location to
the associated PSAP, and then use VoIPbased routing to connect with the PSAP
over its 911 trunks. Intrado has
proposed a similar solution for delivery
of text messages through a gateway.
135. Some commenters express
concerns about implementing a gateway
approach. T-Mobile notes that ‘‘a
national SMS relay center does not exist
today, and would have to be created and
funded, which also cannot be
accomplished rapidly.’’ Sprint submits
that Intrado’s proposal ‘‘would require
the installation of extensive
infrastructure to adapt wireless
networks to the solution. Whether this
proposal could ultimately be successful
nationwide as an interim text-to-911
solution cannot be gauged, since testing
has been very limited to date.’’
136. We seek comment on the
feasibility of establishing one or more
gateway centers for translation and
transmission of text messages to PSAPs.
What are the potential costs of
implementing this approach, and how
would such costs be allocated? Are
CMRS providers or vendors offering
text-to-911 services likely to develop
and offer a gateway option to nonNG911-capable PSAPs? Are non-NG911capable PSAPs likely to choose this
option over the web browser or TTYbased delivery options if it is available?
137. We also seek comment on how
best to ensure that text-to-voice
translation offered as part of the gateway
option does not lead to harmful delays
in communication between the sender
and the PSAP. We anticipate that with
proper certification and training,
telecommunicators will be able to
handle these responsibilities efficiently
and professionally with a minimum of
delay. We also anticipate that as an
increasing number of PSAPs become
capable of accepting IP-based text, the
number of 911 text messages that will
require text-to-voice translation will
decrease, though text-to-voice or text-toTTY (see below) may continue to be
necessary until all PSAPs have been
upgraded.
(iii) Text-to-TTY Translation
138. Under this option, text messages
would be converted into TTY calls that
the PSAP would receive over its existing
TTY facilities. Since all PSAPs already
have TTY capability, this is potentially
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
a very low-cost solution that can be
deployed relatively quickly. Moreover,
this solution supports direct
communication between the sender and
the PSAP.
139. A number of commenters express
support for this option. Neustar
contends that using TTY to transmit
SMS-originated text messages is a viable
interim solution that could ‘‘bridge the
gap’’ before and during the transition to
NG911. Neustar notes that ‘‘almost all
mobile phones are SMS capable but
cannot do TTY and almost all PSAPs
[are] TTY capable but cannot handle
SMS.’’ Neustar further asserts that this
option could be implemented at
minimal cost because ‘‘carriers would
only need to make small investments in
providing cell ID query mechanisms
where they are not already deployed for
itinerate use, and PSAPs should be able
to handle text-to-911 using their existing
TTY equipment.’’ Verizon Wireless and
TCS have stated that they intend to
permit PSAPs that lack Internet
connectivity to receive text messages
using this approach.
140. On the other hand, some
commenters state that TTY is an
outdated technology that could be
susceptible to errors in an automated
text-to-TTY translation process. TMobile states that TTYs ‘‘are not sized
for general public use’’ and ‘‘present
their own technical problems.’’ TMobile also contends that investment in
TTYs would be a dead end investment,
that TTYs are asynchronous and use
Baudot tones, and that the half-duplex
nature of TTYs can lead to messages
being garbled if the texting party and
PSAP call taker send messages over the
top of one another. INdigital submits
that ‘‘using the TTY protocol with a 1%
total character error rate * * * imposes
a technical requirement that is nearly
impossible to meet.’’ T-Mobile asserts
that ‘‘many PSAPs have a limited
number of TTY-equipped answering
stations [and that] the capital
investment required to handle the much
larger volume of messages that would
result from a general public SMS-to-911
system could be substantial for cashstrapped PSAPs.’’ APCO adds that
PSAPs ‘‘us[ing] standalone TTY devices
* * * will face additional challenges if
the volume of calls to these legacy
devices increase[s] dramatically.’’
141. We seek comment on the
feasibility and potential costs and
benefits of making the text-to-TTY
approach available as a text delivery
option for CMRS providers,
interconnected text providers, and
PSAPs. Given the age and technical
limitations of the PSAPs’ existing TTY
equipment, are PSAPs capable of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
handling a volume of text messages
transmitted over TTY from the general
public that could be much larger than
the low current volume of TTY 911
traffic? Could the technical problems
associated with TTYs result in
translation errors? Are there measures
that could be taken to improve the
capacity and reliability of TTY
equipment to handle text-to-911? Are
larger PSAPs likely to make use of TTYs
to receive text-to-911 messages,
compared to the other options discussed
earlier? Do most PSAPs have standalone TTY devices or are these more
likely to be built into the call taker
equipment and would thus be able to
handle a larger text volume?
(iv) State/Regional Approach
142. Under this option, a state or
regional 911 authority could designate a
NG911-capable PSAP to receive and
aggregate 911 text messages over a large
region served by multiple non-NG911capable PSAPs, such as a county, a
multi-county region, or an entire state.
The NG911-capable PSAP would
exchange text messages with the caller
and then communicate by voice with
the non-text-capable PSAP that serves
the caller’s location. This approach is
being applied in the Black Hawk
County, Iowa text-to-911 trial, where the
Black Hawk County PSAP accepts text
messages from any i-Wireless user
located in the state, thus acting as a
gateway for other PSAPs in the state.
143. We seek comment on this
approach. In general, allowing 911
authorities to aggregate handling of text
messages through a single PSAP on a
statewide or regional basis could
accelerate the availability of text-to-911
and lead to cost savings in its
implementation. This approach would
also minimize the operational and
technological impact of text-to-911 for
non-text-capable PSAPs. However,
relaying text messages from the
designated PSAP to other PSAPs in the
state or region could lead to delay in
responding to emergency text as
compared to emergency voice calls. We
seek comment on what measures, if any,
could reduce the risk of such delay.
c. Notification of PSAP Acceptance and
Delivery Method
144. In order for CMRS and
interconnected text providers to deliver
and PSAPs to receive emergency texts
under the framework proposed in this
Further Notice, a mechanism will be
needed for each PSAP to notify
providers (or their text-to-911 vendors)
that it is prepared to accept text
messages and indicating the delivery
option it has chosen. In the Notice, the
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1817
Commission sought comment on the
possibility of developing a centralized
routing database or databases that
would identify which PSAPs are
accepting text-to-911 messages and the
routing a delivery method selected by
each PSAP. The Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement does not specify a specific
notification procedure; however, it
defines a ‘‘valid request’’ for text-to-911
service as one in which ‘‘the requesting
PSAP represents that it is technically
ready to receive 911 text messages in the
format requested,’’ and ‘‘the appropriate
local or State 911 service governing
authority has specifically authorized the
PSAP to accept and, by extension, the
signatory service provider to provide,
text-to-911 service (and such
authorization is not subject to dispute).’’
145. In its comments, Bandwidth.com
proposes a gateway architecture that
includes a database of all PSAPs with
their preferences for handling text
messages. This approach would
arguably have efficiency advantages
because it would enable PSAPs to
provide notification regarding text
delivery only once to all parties, rather
than having to inform every wireless
carrier or systems service provider
individually. It would also enable
providers of text-to-911 routing services
to coordinate their databases for the
routing of text messages. We seek
comment on the feasibility and cost of
implementing a gateway architecture or
database mechanism. If such
coordination is desirable, how can it be
encouraged or facilitated? What entity
should operate the database? How
should PSAPs declare their preferences?
Can the registry of preferences be
implemented as an extension of the
Commission’s PSAP database? Should
there be a default preference to ensure
that PSAPs that do not declare their text
delivery option by a certain date are
then assumed to prefer text-to-TTY
delivery, since that option should be
available without further PSAP action?
What constitutes a valid notification?
The Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement
requires an appropriate local or State
911 service governing authority to
specifically authorize a PSAP to accept
text-to-911. Should this be a
requirement for a valid notification?
146. We seek comment on the
feasibility and cost of implementing
Bandwidth.com’s proposal or a similar
gateway architecture or database
mechanism. This approach would
arguably have efficiency advantages
because it would enable PSAPs to
provide notification regarding text
delivery only once to all parties, rather
than having to inform every CMRS
provider or systems service provider
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
1818
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
individually. It would also enable
providers of text-to-911 routing services
to coordinate their databases for routing
text messages, via the ECRF. If such
coordination is desirable, how can it be
encouraged or facilitated? How should
PSAPs declare their preferences?
Should there be a default preference to
ensure that PSAPs that do not declare
their text delivery option by a certain
date are assumed to prefer text-to-TTY
delivery, since that option should be
available without further PSAP action?
Who should operate such a database?
Can this registry of preferences be
implemented as an extension of the
Commission PSAP database?
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
12. Cost Recovery and Funding
147. While we seek to structure our
proposals to keep text-to-911 costs as
low as possible for both text-to-911
service providers and PSAPs, we seek
comment on whether there are
additional actions that the Commission
could take to enable text-to-911 service
providers and PSAPs to recover their
costs. We note that under the CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement, signatory
providers agreed to provide text-to-911
‘‘independent of their ability to recover
these associated costs from state or local
governments.’’ At the same time, the
Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement
requires that ‘‘incremental costs for
delivery of text messages (e.g. additional
trunk groups to the PSAP’s premises
required to support TTY delivery) will
be the responsibility of the PSAP, as
determined by individual analysis.’’
a. Text Messaging Providers
148. Background. In response to the
Notice, a number of CMRS commenters
express concerns over funding text-to911. CTIA states that ‘‘[a]ppropriate
funding is a significant uncertainty
given the considerable resources that
would be needed to deploy text-to-911
capabilities on a nationwide basis.’’
RCA notes that ‘‘[c]oncern for adequate
funding of future 911 systems is
widespread and the increasing burden
on wireless and IP-based providers to
maintain the 911 system moving
forward is troubling.’’
149. Vendors contend that existing
911 cost allocation mechanisms can be
used to recover the cost to implement
near-term text-to-911 for both CMRS
providers and PSAPs. Intrado asserts
that the cost of every ‘‘functional
element’’ of a text-to-911 solution ‘‘can
be allocated to wireless carrier networks
and PSAPs consistent with how they are
assigned today under the Commission’s
King County demarcation ruling.’’
Intrado submits that, depending on
which ‘‘functional elements’’ PSAPs
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
choose to implement at each stage of
text-to-911, ‘‘the cost allocations can be
changed if funding considerations
dictate.’’
150. Some commenters suggest that
existing funding mechanisms, such as
TRS and the Universal Service Fund
(USF) could be applied to recover costs
of text-to-911 implementation. Intrado
contends that ‘‘the FCC can and should
determine that SMS is eligible for TRS
funding to the same extent that IP-Relay
is eligible for TRS funding.’’
Bandwidth.com submits that ‘‘a default
destination for text messages that do not
have location info must be determined’’
and contends that ‘‘[t]he TRS/VRS and
IP Relay service providers provide an
excellent option for this function given
their existing role in facilitating
communications between deaf or hardof-hearing callers and PSAP personnel.’’
NASNA also urges the Commission to
consider ‘‘[u]se of the Universal Service
Fund to assist States and regions with
the costs of NG911.’’
151. Discussion. We believe that
existing cost recovery mechanisms are
sufficient to support implementation of
text-to-911 under the framework
presented in this Further Notice.
Generally, CMRS providers recover their
911 implementation costs from their
subscriber base. Since CMRS providers
already support SMS and other texting
applications in their networks, and have
the ability to recover costs of those
applications from their customers, it
appears that the primary additional cost
for CMRS providers to implement textto-911 will be to establish and support
the specific routing and relay functions
needed to transmit emergency text
messages to PSAPs. Additionally, under
the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the
major carriers have agreed to provide
this service independent of cost
recovery from state or local
governments. The record indicates that
the incremental cost would be in the
range of $4 million annually.
152. We also note that an additional
source of funding to reimburse wireless
carriers for their 911 service
implementation costs can be found in
certain cost recovery programs that have
been established through state
legislation. Most states have reported to
the Commission that ‘‘they used the fees
or surcharges that they collected for
911/E911 service solely to fund the
provision of 911/E911 service.’’
Dependent on the regulatory mechanism
set forth in each statute, states distribute
funding either to the carriers directly, or
to a designated state or local entity
which then reimburses carriers. For
example, Alabama provides that ‘‘20%
of the service charges collected are
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
retained by the [States’ Wireless 9–1–1]
board * * * to reimburse wireless
service providers for Phase I and II
expenses.’’ In comparison, Nebraska
provides that from its 911 fund
‘‘payments are also made directly to
wireless carriers for costs incurred for
the provision of enhanced wireless 911
services.’’ Though the means and extent
to which carriers receive stateprescribed reimbursement for 911
implementation costs vary from state to
state, we find that such cost recovery
programs are an available and
significant source of funding that can
facilitate the roll-out of text-to-911
capability. Moreover, some states have
started to apply their 911 funding to
initiate deployment of full NG911
capabilities.
153. Additionally, many states allow
qualifications for cost to include NG911capable components for which CMRS
providers might recover their outlays.
For example, Verizon and Verizon
Wireless note that ‘‘[m]any state and
local governments have * * * begun
reconfiguring their funding mechanisms
to facilitate NG911 deployment. We find
that such actions could provide CMRS
providers with additional funding
flexibility to develop routing and
gateway functions. We seek comment on
this view and request that commenters
update the Commission on any such
efforts that are underway.
154. We also seek comment on
whether USF funding could play a role
in cost recovery, particularly for lowcost text to-911 options such as the
TTY-based approach. Could using these
funding mechanisms expedite text-to911 implementation? What
modifications, if any, would the
Commission have to make to these
funding programs to achieve those
objectives? In commenting on these
approaches, commenters should
consider the Commission’s recent
amendment of its universal service rules
to specify that the functionalities of
eligible voice telephony services
include, among other things, access to
911 and E911 emergency services to the
extent the local government in an
eligible carrier’s service area has
implemented 911 or E911 systems. The
Commission noted that Eligible
Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs)
‘‘will be required to comply with NG911
rules upon implementation by state and
local governments.’’
155. Finally, we seek comment on
current or potential approaches that
would enable third party interconnected
text providers to receive cost recovery
for obligations they may have to provide
services and offerings to implement
text-to-911 capabilities. In view of the
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
funding mechanisms in several states
for CMRS providers to receive cost
recovery, we seek comment on whether
such state level mechanisms might
currently apply to enable
interconnected text providers to receive
cost recovery in complying with text-to911 obligations proposed in this Further
Notice. We also seek comment on
whether states or other jurisdictions
provide or plan to provide cost recovery
mechanisms that could apply to
interconnected text providers. We note
that under our proposed framework, the
infrastructure used by interconnected
text providers would be similar to the
infrastructure used by CMRS providers
for the delivery of text messages to a
PSAP. We seek comment on whether
this would facilitate extending existing
cost recovery mechanisms on CMRS
providers to interconnected text
providers.
b. PSAPs
156. Background. A number of public
safety commenters express concerns
about funding, noting that many PSAPs
are subject to state and local regulatory
mandates that may affect their ability to
fund the implementation of text-to-911
service. APCO asserts that ‘‘[m]any
PSAPs are mandated to answer 90% of
their incoming 9–1–1 calls in 10
seconds or less to qualify for receipt of
wireless surcharge and other 9–1–1
funds.’’ APCO further contends that ‘‘[i]t
is unlikely that these * * * mandates
will be modified to accommodate the
additional time that interim solution
based text calls may have on the PSAP’s
ability to meet these standards.’’ APCO
argues that, consequently,
‘‘implementing SMS text-to-9–1–1 may
jeopardize some PSAPs eligibility for
surcharge funds.’’ NATOA concurs,
stating that ‘‘localities could lose vital
911 fees and other funding in the event
they fail to meet performance mandates
due to the increased time necessary to
handle text-based calls.’’ Other
commenters, however, assert that recent
trials have not substantiated the alleged
increase in call-taking time due to the
characteristics of SMS text.
157. Wireless carrier commenters also
question whether PSAPs have the
necessary funding to support the
transition to text-to-911. The Blooston
Rural Carriers argue that ‘‘at this point
in time and for the foreseeable future,
PSAPs are simply not equipped (and
will not be equipped) to process SMS
text-to-911 transmissions, and the costs
associated with the PSAP upgrades
needed to achieve this capability are apt
to be great.’’ Verizon and Verizon
Wireless assert that ‘‘many PSAPs will
need to secure funding sources, all will
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
need time to upgrade their own
networks and facilities and train
personnel, and all will need to educate
consumers on where NG911 is available.
* * *.’’ Verizon and Verizon Wireless
further submit that ‘‘the Commission
should avoid mandates for short-term
solutions that would force NG911 to
compete with SMS-based solutions for
PSAP and service provider resources.’’
4G Americas cites the ‘‘[s]carce funding
for PSAP NG911 upgrades [a]s a major
concern’’ and argues that ‘‘[it] would do
little good to mandate carrier near-term
deployment of technologies that would
require massive investments by PSAPs
or require a complete overhaul of
existing emergency communications
systems.’’
158. In view of perceived funding
difficulties, both public safety
commenters and CMRS providers
advocate a regional or state-level
approach to lower costs and generate
economies of scale in implementing
near-term text-to-911 as well as
facilitating a transition to NG911. CTIA
contends that ‘‘[a] statewide approach to
NG911 deployment will encourage
wireless service providers and PSAPs to
coordinate their efforts to deploy
requested services in a reasonable and
efficient manner and mitigate public
confusion regarding the capabilities
available to a local PSAP.’’ Verizon and
Verizon Wireless submit that ‘‘[a]
statewide approach provides a brightline mechanism that is consistent with
funding mechanisms, which are
generally governed at the state level
* * *.’’ Verizon and Verizon Wireless
refer to a ‘‘current trend in state
governments toward greater PSAP
consolidation and statewide
coordination of NG911 efforts.’’ King
County notes that ‘‘it may not be
feasible to fund the upgrades necessary
for NG911 at the state’s 64 PSAPs’’ and
that ‘‘[t]he State E911 Office and the
NG911 Subcommittee have developed a
plan for the centralization of equipment
at various hubs throughout the state that
will serve multiple PSAPs in order to
reduce equipment upgrade costs.’’
Verizon and Verizon Wireless remark
that ‘‘[i]t is not necessary that every
jurisdiction within a state be NG911
capable prior to a service provider’s
initiation of service within the state.’’
RCA adds that ‘‘the current economic
climate and need for financial restraint
make consolidation of PSAPs an
essential part of the transition to
NG911’’ and that ‘‘[c]onsolidation is one
of the most important preliminary steps
on the path to widespread NG911
deployment.’’
159. Further, NENA contends that
‘‘[i]t will prove most efficient if requests
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1819
for text service originate from these
larger units, reducing costs for both the
public and the providers called upon to
provide service.’’ NENA cautions,
however, ‘‘that 9–1–1 remains * * * [a
local service] that, in many states, is
provided by small local agencies below
the county level with little or no higher
level coordination or oversight.’’ ‘‘[T]o
maintain the autonomy to which 9–1–1
system operators have become
accustomed,’’ NENA suggests that the
Commission ‘‘refrain from mandating a
regional or state-wide approach to
system readiness showings, and instead
make such aggregated showings
optional, at the election of the states.’’
160. Discussion. PSAPs generally pay
for their 911 costs from state and local
revenues generated by monthly 911 fees
that CMRS providers collect from their
subscribers. Wireless carriers argue that
cost recovery regulations in many
jurisdictions are inadequate to meet
PSAP funding needs for text-to-911.
Verizon and Verizon Wireless note that
‘‘[s]ome jurisdictions impose significant
restrictions on use of 911-related fees or
taxes by limiting the use of such monies
for traditional local exchange and
commercial mobile radio services, or
imposing explicit restrictions on the
types of equipment and services that
may be purchased.’’ Verizon and
Verizon Wireless add that ‘‘[s]tate and
local jurisdictions that face funding
constraints may, if given a choice
between a costly SMS-based solution
versus a more robust IP-enabled NG911
technology, opt for the former.’’
Although ‘‘a particular jurisdiction
[could] fund both direct SMS and
NG911 solutions, such an outcome
could result in even higher fees imposed
on consumers with marginal additional
public safety benefit.’’
161. As discussed above, we propose
several options that consider the
disparities in PSAPs’ current technical
capabilities and that enable non-NG911capable PSAPs to handle texts without
significant cost or upgrades. For
instance, both the Web delivery and the
TTY-translation options is a low cost
alternative because PSAPs already have
TTY capability. While this option
employs an IP-gateway to facilitate
routing functions compared to the
traditional relay function of TTY/TDD,
we believe that, in view of the relatively
low cost to PSAPs to implement TTYtranslation-based text-to-911, existing
funding mechanisms can serve to defray
the costs. Similarly, PSAPs that choose
the gateway center option can limit
costs by using already-trained CAs to
translate between text and voice.
162. Moreover, contrary to Verizon
and Verizon Wireless’ assertion that
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
1820
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
funding for interim text-to-911 solutions
would adversely affect the resources
available to support a transition to full
NG911 capabilities, we believe that the
low cost options discussed above
constitute a reasonable and cost efficient
alternative to resolving possible
limitations in funding at the state or
local level. Additionally, we note that
under the current Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement, PSAPs would be
responsible for their incremental costs
for delivery of text messages. We seek
comment on this view.
163. Based on our proposal to offer
PSAPs an array of text-to-911 delivery
options, including options that entail
very limited cost, we believe that
existing funding mechanisms constitute
a sufficient resource to implement textto-911 within our proposed time frame.
We seek comment on this approach. We
also seek comment on whether these
funding mechanisms could be applied
to other IP-based component upgrades.
If not, what modifications need to
occur? Are there actions the
Commission could take to encourage or
facilitate those modifications at the state
or regional level? We invite comment on
approaches that the Commission could
pursue to encourage the states or
regional entities to address such
changes in funding to incentivize
deploying the necessary text-to-911
upgrades within the proposed
timeframe.
13. Liability Protection
164. Background. In general, liability
protection for provision of 911 service is
governed by state law and has
traditionally been applied only to LECs.
However, Congress has expanded the
scope of state liability protection by
requiring states to provide parity in the
degree of protection provided to
traditional and non-traditional 911
providers, and more recently, to
providers of NG911 service. In 2008,
Congress enacted the New and Emerging
Technologies 911 Improvement Act (Net
911 Act), which provides that a
‘‘wireless carrier, IP-enabled voice
service provider, or other emergency
communications provider * * * shall
have’’ the same liability protection as a
local exchange carrier under federal and
state law. In February 2012, Congress
further extended state liability
protection to providers of NG911 service
in the Next Generation 9–1–1
Advancement Act of 2012. The Next
Generation 911 Advancement Act
provides that ‘‘a provider or user of Next
Generation 9–1–1 services * * * shall
have immunity and protection from
liability under Federal and State law [to
the extent provided under section 4 of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
the Wireless Communications and
Public Safety Act of 1999],’’ with
respect to ‘‘the release of subscriber
information related to emergency calls
or emergency services,’’ ‘‘the use or
provision of 9–1–1 services, E9–1–1
services, or Next Generation 9–1–1
services,’’ and ‘‘other matters related to
9–1–1 services, E9–1–1 services, or Next
Generation 9–1–1 services.’’
165. In the Notice, which was
released prior to the Next Generation
911 Advancement Act, the Commission
asked whether the liability provisions in
the NET 911 Act embrace the full range
of technologies and service providers
that will be involved in the provisioning
of NG911 services. The Notice also
asked whether the Commission has the
authority to extend liability protection
to entities involved in the provisioning
of NG911 services or whether
Congressional action is necessary.
166. In response to the Notice,
numerous commenters argue that
liability protection is essential as part of
any extension of 911 requirements to
include text. Commenters also assert
that the lack of express liability
protection for NG911 has hampered the
deployment of NG911 networks.
Commenters also argue that federal law
requiring parity in state law protection
does not adequately protect 911 and
NG911 service providers because the
scope of underlying liability protection
is dictated by state law and varies from
state to state. AT&T, for example, argues
that ‘‘liability protection presently
provided under the NET 911 Act is
insufficient because it is tied to the
protection afforded under various state
laws and, often, a local exchange
carrier’s tariff.’’ Motorola argues that
‘‘[n]ational consistency in liability
protection will be essential to
encouraging investment and promoting
a smooth NG911 transition.’’
167. Discussion. We recognize that
adequate liability protection is needed
for PSAPs, CMRS providers, third party
interconnected service providers, and
vendors to proceed with
implementation of text-to-911 as
contemplated in this Further Notice.
The recent passage of the Next
Generation 911 Advancement Act has
significantly expanded the scope of
liability protection and potentially
resolved some of the issues raised by
commenters by making clear that states
must provide the same level of
protection for NG911 as for traditional
911 and E911. We also note that under
the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the
four major wireless carriers have
committed to deploy text-to-911
capability throughout their nationwide
networks without any precondition
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
requiring additional liability protection
other than the protection that is
provided by current state and Federal
law. Nevertheless, we seek comment on
whether there are additional steps the
Commission could take—consistent
with our regulatory authority—to
provide additional liability protection to
text-to-911 service providers. We also
seek comment on whether the combined
parity protection afforded by the NET
911 Act and the Next Generation 911
Advancement Act extends to all
providers of text-to-911 service,
regardless of whether such service is
provided using pre-NG911 or NG911
mechanisms. We seek comment on
whether providers of text-to-911 service
have sufficient liability protection under
current law to provide text-to-911
services to their customers, or whether
additional protection may still be
needed or desirable.
C. Legal Authority
168. We seek comment on the
Commission’s authority to apply the
automated error message and more
comprehensive text-to-911 rules
proposed herein to both CMRS
providers and other entities that offer
interconnected text messaging services
(including third-party providers of
‘‘over-the- top’’ text messaging
applications). In doing so, we
incorporate herein the portions of our
2011 Notice regarding the Commission’s
authority to adopt text-to-911 rules. We
note that, in response to our 2011
Notice, numerous parties addressed the
Commission’s authority to adopt text-to911 rules under the CVAA, Title III, and
our ancillary authority. Since then, we
have modified our proposals and taken
into account recent developments
regarding the deployment of text-to-911
offerings, including the recent CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement.
169. We now ask parties to refresh the
record on the legal authority issues and
to address their comments to the
particular rules being proposed herein.
Specifically, we ask commenters to
address the Commission’s authority
under the CVAA to apply the proposed
rules to this circumstance, and in
particular to other entities that offer
interconnected text messaging service.
In this regard, we seek comment on how
the Commission’s ‘‘authority to
promulgate regulations to implement
the recommendations proposed by’’
EAAC applies to this circumstance.
Would the Commission’s decision to
adopt the proposed text-to-911 rules
implement EAAC recommendation
P4.1, titled ‘‘Interim Text Access,’’ or
recommendation T1.2, titled ‘‘Interim
Mobile Text Solution’’? Are there other
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
EAAC recommendations relevant to our
authority under Section 615c(g)? We
also invite comment on how the
Commission’s authority to promulgate
‘‘any other regulations, technical
standards, protocols, and procedures as
are necessary to achieve reliable,
interoperable communication that
ensures access by individuals with
disabilities to an Internet protocolenabled emergency network, where
achievable and technically feasible’’
applies to these proposals, and in
particular to other entities that offer
interconnected text messaging service.
170. In addition to the CVAA, we ask
commenters to address the
Commission’s authority under Title III,
including our authority under Sections
301, 303, 307, 309, and 316, to adopt the
rules proposed herein. We note that,
when analyzing our legal authority in
the 2011 Notice, we stated our ‘‘belie[f]
that we have well-established legal
authority under * * * Title III
provisions to take the regulatory and
non-regulatory measures described
[t]herein that would apply to users of
spectrum.’’ Since then, the D.C. Circuit
provided additional guidance regarding
the scope of our Title III authority in
Cellco Partnership v. FCC. We now seek
additional comment on our Title III
authority in light of this decision.
171. Among other points, we seek
comment on whether Title III grants the
Commission authority to apply the
proposed rules to third-party
interconnected text providers and, if so,
which specific provisions of Title III
apply to them. Does the Commission’s
Title III authority over those entities
depend on how they offer their service?
For example, does the FCC’s Title III
authority over them turn on whether the
entity holds a Commission’s license or
other authorization, and, if so, whether
such authorization is integral to that
entity’s interconnected texting service?
Do any third-party interconnected text
messaging providers hold any such
authorizations? We also ask commenters
to address the Commission’s authority
to impose regulations on CMRS
providers that indirectly affect thirdparty providers. For example, does the
Commission have authority to require
CMRS providers to take steps to prevent
the use of certain third-party
applications that do not support text-to911? If so, would such steps be
consistent with the Commission’s open
platform requirements for the 700 MHz
C Block and other agency precedent?
172. We also ask commenters to
address the Commission’s ability to rely
on its ancillary authority to adopt the
rules proposed herein. The Commission
may act pursuant to its ancillary
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
authority when ‘‘(1) the Commission’s
general jurisdictional grant under Title
I [of the Communications Act] covers
the regulated subject and (2) the
regulations are reasonably ancillary to
the Commission’s effective performance
of its statutorily mandated
responsibilities.’’ We ask commenters to
discuss both prongs of this test. Would
the Commission’s decision to adopt the
proposed rules be ancillary to certain
Title III provisions, the CVAA, or other
statutory provisions? Is application of
the proposed rules to all providers of
interconnected text-messaging services
necessary to avoid consumer confusion
or achieve the public safety benefits
associated with applying such rules to
CMRS providers? We seek comment on
these questions.
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Ex Parte Presentations
173. The proceedings initiated by this
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceedings in accordance
with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
Persons making ex parte presentations
must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must: (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made; and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda, or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with rule
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1821
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
B. Comment Filing Procedures
174. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments in
response to this Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on or before the
dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed
using the Commission’s Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See
Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121
(1998).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
• Paper Filers: Parties that choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number.
Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
C. Accessible Formats
175. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities
(braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), send an email to
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
1822
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
176. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. sec.
604, the Commission has prepared an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on small entities of the
policies and rules addressed in this
document. The IRFA is set forth in
Appendix B. Written public comments
are requested in the IRFA. These
comments must be filed in accordance
with the same filing deadlines as
comments filed in response to this
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
as set forth on the first page of this
document, and have a separate and
distinct heading designating them as
responses to the IRFA.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 20 as follows:
E. Paperwork Reduction Analysis
177. The Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking contains proposed new
information collection requirements.
The Commission, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public and
OMB to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in
this document, as required by PRA. In
addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
we seek specific comment on how we
might ‘‘further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25
employees.’’
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–
418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY).
*
V. Ordering Clauses
178. It is further ordered, pursuant to
Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 10, 201, 214, 222,
251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r),
307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316, 316(a),
332, 615a, 615a–1, 615b, 615c(a),
615c(c), 615c(g), and 615(c)(1) of the
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.
sec. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157, 160, 201,
214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b),
303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316,
316(a), 332, 615a, 615a-1, 615b, 615c,
615c(c), 615c(g), and 615(c)(1) that this
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
is hereby adopted.
179. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20
Communications common carriers.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Jan 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
PART 20—COMMERCIAL MOBILE
SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 20 is
revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i),
157, 160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303,
303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316,
316(a), 332, 615a, 615a–1, 615b, 615c,
615c(c), 615c(g), and 615(c)(1).
2. Section 20.18 is amended by adding
paragraph (n) to read as follows:
■
§ 20.18 911
Service.
*
*
*
*
(n) Text-messaging for 911. CMRS
providers subject to this section and
third party interconnected text
providers as defined in paragraph (n)(6)
of this section shall comply with the
following requirements:
(1) CMRS providers subject to this
section shall provide an automated error
text message that notifies consumers
attempting to send text messages to 911
in areas where text-to-911 is unavailable
or in other instances where the carrier
is unable to transmit the text to the
PSAP serving the texting party’s
location for reasons including, but not
limited to, network congestion, the
inability of the PSAP to accept such
messages, or otherwise. The
requirements of this paragraph only
apply when the CMRS provider (or the
CMRS provider’s text-to-911 vendor)
has direct control over the transmission
of the text message. The automatic
notification must include information
on how to contact the PSAP. CMRS
providers shall meet the requirements of
this paragraph no later than June 30,
2013.
(2) No later than May 15, 2014, CMRS
providers shall offer their subscribers
the capability to send 911 text messages
to the appropriate PSAP from any textcapable wireless handset.
(i) CMRS providers must provide their
subscribers with at least one preinstalled text-to-911 option per mobile
device model under a CMRS provider’s
direct control. The pre-installed text-to911 option must be capable of operating
over the provider’s entire network
coverage area. Where a consumer has
obtained the device from an unaffiliated
third party and uses the device on a
CMRS provider’s network, CMRS
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
providers must offer a text-to-911
application that the consumer can load
on to the device.
(ii) To meet the requirement of
paragraph (n)(2) of this section, CMRS
providers may select any reliable
method or methods for text routing and
delivery. For example, CMRS providers
may use Short Message Service (SMS),
mobile-switched, or Internet Protocol
(IP)-based methods for text routing and
delivery.
(3) 911 is the designated short code
for text messages sent to PSAPs.
(4) CMRS providers must route all 911
text messages to the appropriate PSAP,
based on the cell sector to which the
mobile device is connected. In
complying with this requirement, CMRS
providers must route text messages to
the same PSAP to which they currently
route 911 calls, unless the responsible
local or state entity designates a
different PSAP to receive 911 text
messages and informs the carrier of that
change.
(5) Roaming. When a consumer is
roaming, both the home and visiting
network operators must cooperate to
support the delivery of the text to the
appropriate PSAP serving the sender’s
location.
(6) Third party interconnected text
providers. (i) All third-party
interconnected text application
providers that offer the capability for
consumers to send to and receive text
messages from text-capable mobile
telephone numbers shall send an
automated error text message when a
user of the application attempts to send
an emergency text in an area where textto-911 is not supported or the provider
is otherwise unable to transmit the text
to the PSAP for reasons including, but
not limited to, network congestion, the
inability of the PSAP to accept such
messages, or otherwise. The automatic
error notification must include
information on how to contact the
PSAP. Third party interconnected text
providers subject to this paragraph shall
meet the above requirements no later
than June 30, 2013.
(ii) No later than May 15, 2014, all
third party interconnected text
providers that provide the capability for
consumers to send to and receive text
messages from text-capable mobile
telephone numbers must offer the
capability described in paragraph (n)(2)
of this section during time periods when
the mobile device is connected to a
CMRS network.
[FR Doc. 2013–00159 Filed 1–8–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1799-1822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00159]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[PS Docket No. 11-153; PS Docket No. 10-255; FCC 12-149]
Next Generation 911; Text-to-911; Next Generation 911
Applications
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend its
rules by requiring all wireless carriers and providers of
``interconnected'' text messaging applications to support the ability
of consumers to send text messages to 911 in all areas throughout the
nation where 911 Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) are also
prepared to receive the texts. In addition, to inform consumers and
prevent confusion, the Commission proposes to require all wireless
carriers and interconnected text messaging providers to send automated
``bounce back'' error messages to consumers attempting to text 911 when
the service is not available.
DATES: Comment Date for Section III.A: January 29, 2013.
Reply Comment Date for Section III.A: February 8, 2013.
Comment Date for Other Sections: March 11, 2013.
Reply Comment Date for Other Sections: April 9, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments to Federal Communications Commission, 445
12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Garza, Attorney Advisor, (202)
418-1175. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction
Act information collection requirements contained in this document,
contact Judith Boley-Herman, (202) 418-0214, or send an email to
PRA@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket No. 11-153, PS
Docket No. 10-255, FCC 12-149, released on December 13, 2012. The full
text of this document is available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or online at https://www.fcc.gov/document/text-911-further-notice-proposed-rulemaking.
I. Introduction
1. Wireless consumers are increasingly using text messaging as a
means of everyday communication on a variety of platforms. The legacy
911 system, however, does not support text messaging as a means of
reaching emergency responders, leading to potential consumer confusion
and even to possible danger. As consumer use of carrier-based and third
party-provided texting applications expands and evolves, the 911 system
must also evolve to enable wireless consumers to reach 911 in those
emergency situations where a voice call is not feasible or appropriate.
2. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we propose rules
that will enable Americans to send text messages to 911 (text-to-911)
and that will educate and inform consumers regarding the future
availability and appropriate use of text-to-911. Specifically, we
propose to require all wireless carriers and providers of
``interconnected'' text messaging applications to support the ability
of consumers to send text messages to 911 in all areas throughout the
nation where 911 Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) are also
prepared to receive the texts. In addition, to inform consumers and
prevent confusion, we propose to require all wireless carriers and
interconnected text messaging providers to send automated ``bounce
back'' error messages to consumers attempting to text 911 when the
service is not available.
3. Our proposals build on the recently filed voluntary commitment
by the four largest wireless carriers--in an agreement with the
National Emergency Number Association (NENA), and the Association of
Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) (Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement)--to make text-to-911 available to their customers by May 15,
2014, and to provide automatic bounce back messages across their
networks by June 30, 2013. The baseline requirements we propose in this
Further Notice are modeled on the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, and we
seek comment on whether all carriers, including regional, small and
rural carriers, and all ``interconnected text'' providers can achieve
these milestones in the same or similar timeframes. To allow for the
possibility of implementing our bounce back proposal by June 30, 2013,
we are seeking comment on this portion of the Further Notice on an
accelerated basis. Moreover, in light of the importance of these
issues, we intend to resolve promptly the questions we raise in the
remaining portion of the Further Notice in 2013.
4. Our proposal to add text capability to the 911 system will
vastly enhance the system's accessibility for over 40 million Americans
with hearing or speech disabilities. It will also provide a vital and
lifesaving alternative to the public in situations where 911 voice
service is unavailable or placing a voice call could endanger the
caller. Indeed, as recent history has shown, text messaging is often
the most reliable means of communications during disasters where voice
calls cannot be completed due to capacity constraints. Finally,
implementing text-to-911 represents a crucial next step in the ongoing
transition of the legacy 911 system to a Next Generation 911 (NG911)
system that will support not only text but will also enable consumers
to send photos, videos, and data to PSAPs, enhancing the information
available to first responders for assessing and responding to
emergencies.
5. Our proposed approach to text-to-911 is also based on the
presumption that consumers in emergency situations should be able to
communicate using the text applications they are most familiar with
from everyday use. Currently, the most commonly used texting technology
is Short Message Service (SMS), which is available, familiar, and
widely used by virtually all wireless consumers. In the Carrier-NENA-
APCO Agreement, the four major carriers have indicated that they intend
to use SMS-based text for their initial text-to-911 deployments, and we
expect other initial deployments to be similarly SMS-based.
6. At the same time, we do not propose to limit our focus to SMS-
based text. As a result of the rapid proliferation of smartphones and
other
[[Page 1800]]
advanced mobile devices, some consumers are beginning to move away from
SMS to other IP-based text applications, including downloadable
software applications provided by parties other than the underlying
carrier. To the extent that consumers gravitate to such applications as
their primary means of communicating by text, they may reasonably come
to expect these applications to also support text-to-911, as consumer
familiarity is vital in emergency situations where seconds matter.
Therefore, in this Further Notice, we seek to ensure that consumers
ultimately have access to the same text-to-911 capabilities on the full
array of texting applications that they use for ubiquitous
communication--regardless of provider or platform. We also propose that
service providers who offer SMS-based text-to-911 should have the
flexibility to migrate their customers to other text-to-911
applications.
7. While our proposal is designed to accelerate the nationwide
availability of text-to-911, we recognize that deployment will not be
uniform, e.g., during the transition period, text-to-911 may be
available in certain geographic areas while it is not available in
others, or may be supported by certain carriers but not by others. This
creates the risk of consumer confusion about the availability of text-
to-911 as the transition proceeds--indeed, there is evidence that many
consumers erroneously believe that they can already reach 911 by text,
and that some have attempted to do so. Rapid implementation of the
bounce back notification mechanism that we propose in this Further
Notice is therefore critical to informing consumers and lessening
potential confusion about text-to-911 availability. In addition, we
intend to begin work immediately with PSAPs, carriers, service
providers, disability organizations, consumer groups, and others to
educate and inform consumers regarding the transition, local
availability, and appropriate use of text-to-911.
8. Finally, we emphasize that even as adding text capability makes
the 911 system more accessible and effective in enhancing public
safety, text-to-911 is and will remain a complement to, rather than a
substitute for, voice 911 service. The voice 911 system that has been
maintained and improved over decades remains the preferred means of
seeking help in an emergency in most instances. Moreover, voice 911
service will continue to be central and essential to the 911 system
even as we add text, photo, data, and video capabilities in the course
of migrating to NG911. Therefore, even as we take this first major step
in the transition to NG911, we continue to encourage all consumers
seeking emergency help to access 911 by voice whenever possible.
II. General Background
9. In September 2011, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Notice) (76 FR 63257, October 12, 2011), which sought
comment on a number of issues related to the deployment of NG911,
including potential near-term methods for delivering text-to-911;
whether and how to prioritize 911 in major emergencies; how to
facilitate the long-term deployment of text-to-911; the Commission's
role in deploying text-to-911 and other NG911 applications; consumer
education and disclosure mechanisms; and the relationship between this
proceeding and the implementation of the Twenty-First Century
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA).
A. Text-to-911 Deployments and Trials
10. While some commenters initially expressed concerns about
implementing near-term text-to-911, both wireless carriers and public
safety entities have more recently taken significant steps towards the
near-term deployment of text-to-911, including SMS-based solutions. In
May 2012, Verizon Wireless announced plans to deploy text-to-911
capability throughout its nationwide network in 2013. On December 10,
2012, Verizon Wireless commenced its rollout of text-to-911 service in
York County, Virginia. In June 2012, AT&T also announced the goal of
launching text-to-911 nationwide in 2013. In addition, the Alliance for
Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), an organization
consisting of a large number of wireless and wireline carriers as well
as equipment vendors, has formed a committee to ``create an ATIS
standard(s) for SMS-to-9-1-1 that incorporates requirements,
architecture, message flows, and product details.'' ATIS has targeted
completion of these standards in the first quarter of 2013. Most
recently, as noted above and described in further detail below, the
four major wireless carriers, Sprint Nextel, AT&T, T-Mobile, and
Verizon, have entered into a voluntary agreement with NENA and APCO
whereby the major carriers will provide text-to-911 service by May 15,
2014, to PSAPs who request the service.
11. Some of these same wireless carriers have already initiated
text-to-911 trials in partnership with several PSAPs to assess the
technical feasibility of text-to-911 and its impact on PSAP operations.
Four trials are currently under way--three of which have yielded
positive results. First, as just announced, AT&T is ``in the process of
launching a standards-based trial service for text-to-911 in the state
of Tennessee * * *.'' Additionally, in June 2009, Black Hawk County,
Iowa partnered with Intrado (a provider of 911 technology solutions)
and i wireless (a T-Mobile affiliate that offers regional wireless
communications service), to provide text-to-911 service within the
county. According to Black Hawk County, there have been no delayed or
dropped text messages in the trial, nor has there been a ``significant
increase in incident volume.'' Indeed, callers have benefitted from the
technology in several situations. This includes women who have been at
risk of domestic abuse who have been able to text for help undetected
by their assailant; children reporting instances of domestic abuse; and
anonymous reports of imminent sales of controlled substances. Black
Hawk County has expanded the trial and now receives text messages from
individuals throughout the state, which it then relays to the
appropriate PSAP. According to Black Hawk County, the trial
demonstrates that text-to-911 service ``is reliable and * * * saves
lives.''
12. In August 2011, the City of Durham, North Carolina (Durham)
initiated an SMS-to-911 trial in partnership with Verizon Wireless and
Intrado. According to Durham, the technology has worked reliably.
Durham's trial suggests that callers will continue to rely on voice
calls to 911 and that concerns about text messages overwhelming PSAPs
may be unfounded. Durham views the technology as a ``valuable asset''
and the North Carolina Director of the Division of Services for the
Deaf and the Hard of Hearing stated that ``the significance of the
program cannot be overstated.'' More recently, the trial was extended
``to accommodate Durham's additional outreach to individuals with
disabilities.''
13. In April 2012, the State of Vermont (Vermont) initiated a text-
to-911 trial allowing any Verizon Wireless subscriber to send emergency
text messages to the Williston, Vermont PSAP, provided that the text
message is transmitted via a cell tower located within the physical
boundaries of Vermont. The Executive Director of the Vermont E911 Board
stated that implementing the trial ``wasn't * * * difficult at all''
and that so far, the trial has proceeded ``very smoothly.'' Vermont
believes that fears over the volume of emergency text messages are
[[Page 1801]]
``overblown'' and ``remain[s] convinced that those who can make a voice
call will make a voice call as that is the most efficient way to
communicate in an emergency.''
14. Vermont further reports that as of August 2012, it had received
only two legitimate emergency text messages, but in both cases
emergency services were able to intervene successfully. In one case, a
life was saved when emergency personnel were able to thwart an
attempted suicide. In the other case, a domestic abuse victim was able
to contact police, who then arrived on the scene and made an arrest.
While Vermont recognizes that some parties would prefer to wait for a
more advanced text-to-911 solution, Vermont maintains that the
``individual whose life we saved and the domestic assault victim would
likely disagree that it is too soon to have this technology
available.'' Vermont also indicates it has experienced some text
``spoofing,'' but notes that ``there is nothing about this new
technology that is any more likely to result in `spoof' contacts than
what we already deal with on the voice side of the system.''
Additionally, Vermont did not experience any problems with text slang.
15. On October 30, 2012, Vermont submitted an ex parte filing
indicating that it is maintaining the text-to-911 system past the end
of its trial and is ``currently working on enabling a second Public
Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for redundancy purposes.'' Vermont states
that it ``can report no negative operational impacts on our system as
the result of the Verizon trial,'' but that it needs the Commission's
assistance in ``encouraging all of the carriers to do the right thing
and enable text-to-9-1-1 now.'' Vermont concludes by stating that
``[w]e understand that there are some concerns both in the PSAP and
industry communities about the timing of SMS text-to-9-1-1, but so long
as the most common method of texting on today's devices remains SMS, we
feel it is important to move ahead and not wait for the promises that
other texting solutions might provide.'' On December 3, 2012, Vermont
announced that it would further expand its text-to-911 trial to include
Sprint Nextel customers, in collaboration with the Vermont Enhanced 911
Board, Sprint Wireless, and Intrado.
B. Carriers' Voluntary Commitments
16. On December 6, 2012, APCO, NENA, Sprint Nextel, AT&T, T-Mobile,
and Verizon, entered into a voluntary agreement whereby each of the
four major carriers will provide text-to-911 service by May 15, 2014,
to PSAPs who request such a service. Under the terms of the Carrier-
NENA-APCO Agreement, once a signatory carrier begins to offer text-to-
911 service, ``valid PSAP requests for Text-to-911 service will be
implemented within a reasonable amount of time of receiving such a
request, not to exceed six months.'' A request will be considered
``valid'' if the ``requesting PSAP represents that it is technically
ready to receive 911 text messages in the format requested,'' and ``the
appropriate local or State 911 service governing authority has
specifically authorized the PSAP to accept and, by extension, the
signatory service provider to provide, text-to-911 service (and such
authorization is not subject to dispute).'' Additionally, no later than
July 1, 2013, the four major providers will ``voluntarily provide
quarterly progress reports to the FCC, NENA, and APCO summarizing the
status of the deployment of a national Text-to-911 service
capability.''
17. Under the terms of the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the major
carriers have also agreed to implement a bounce-back message capability
by June 30, 2013. The bounce back message will ``alert subscribers
attempting to text an emergency message to instead dial 911 when text-
to-911 is unavailable in that area.''
18. The signatories also agreed on additional measures to implement
text-to-911 voluntarily. Specifically, the signatories agree that
``PSAPs will select the format for how messages are to be delivered,''
and that ``incremental costs for delivery of text messages * * * will
be the responsibility of the PSAP, as determined by individual
analysis.'' Additionally, the signatory service providers agree to
implement a 911 short code and agreed to implement text-to-911
``independent of their ability to recover * * * associated costs from
state or local governments.'' The signatory providers also agree to
``work with APCO, NENA, and the FCC to establish an outreach effort to
set and manage consumer expectations regarding the availability/
limitations of the Text-to-911 service (including when roaming) and the
benefits of using voice calls to 911 whenever possible, and support
APCO and NENA's effort to educate PSAPs on text-to-911 generally.''
19. Finally, the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement limits the proposed
voluntary text-to-911 solution ``to the capabilities of the existing
SMS service offered by a participating wireless service provider on the
home wireless network to which a wireless subscriber originates an SMS
message.'' Thus, the carriers state that under the terms of their
voluntary commitment to deploy text-to-911 capability by May 15, 2014,
``SMS-to-911 will not be available to wireless subscribers roaming
outside of their home wireless network,'' and ``[e]ach implementation
of SMS-to-911 will be unique to the capabilities of each signatory
service provider or its Gateway Service Provider.''
III. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
20. In this Further Notice, we seek comment on issues related to
text-to-911 in light of the evolved record, and bifurcate the comment
cycles in order to deal most promptly with the consumer notification
issue that has the potential to alleviate near-term consumer confusion
as to the availability of text-to-911 both during the course of the
voluntary roll outs that several carriers have proposed and during the
pendency of the Commission's proceeding. Accordingly, comments with
respect to Section III.A will be due 20 days from publication in the
Federal Register, and reply comments on Section III.A will be due 10
days thereafter. Comments and reply comments should address only the
issues posed in this section in order to provide the Commission with a
focused record on this question. Comments and reply comment on the
remaining portion of the Further Notice will be due 60 days and 90 days
from publication in the Federal Register, respectively. We also seek
comment on Section III.C (Legal Authority) as relevant to each section
in accordance with the comment timeframe for that section.
A. Automated Error Messages for Failed Text-to-911 Attempts and
Consumer Expectations and Education
1. Automated Error Message Proposal
21. Background. In the Notice, the Commission noted the likelihood
that as text-to-911 is implemented, there will be instances where
despite efforts to educate consumers, some individuals will attempt to
send text messages to 911 in locations where text-to-911 is not
supported. The Commission observed that this ``could put consumers at
risk if they were unaware that an emergency text did not go through or
were uninformed about alternative means of reaching the PSAP.'' To
mitigate this risk, the Commission proposed that in situations where a
consumer attempts to text 911 in a location where text-to-911 is not
available, the consumer should receive an automatic error message or
similar disclosure that includes
[[Page 1802]]
information on how to contact the PSAP.
22. Public safety commenters generally support such an automatic
notification requirement. APCO argues that ``[i]n situations where a
consumer attempts to text 9-1-1 in an area that does not support this
technology, a standardized auto message should be immediately returned
indicating how to contact the PSAP and/or that a voice call is
required. The Commission is urged to work with APCO, NENA and NASNA to
develop best practices and model responses.'' The State of California
similarly maintains that ``the Commission [should] require any service
provider that provides texting capability to its customers to provide
an immediate, automatic response (preferably standard nationwide
message) to any text-to-911 stating that texting to 9-1-1 is not
available and advising the customer to make a voice call to 9-1-1 in an
emergency.''
23. In their comments in response to the Notice, commercial mobile
radio service (CMRS) providers acknowledge the importance of providing
notification of non-delivery to consumers, although some commenters
question whether the Commission should adopt a notification
requirement. Verizon notes that it already provides an automated
message when a wireless customer attempts to send a text message to 911
in a location where text-to-911 is not available. Verizon states that
its voluntary practice obviates the need for regulation, but notes that
``[s]hould the Commission nevertheless find a requirement is necessary,
language like Verizon's would be sufficient and appropriate.'' Sprint
argues that before making any decision on this issue, the Commission
should first refer the matter to standards organizations ``to review
the technical aspects associated with delivering an error message and
to develop a consistent error response message.'' Finally, textPlus, a
software-based text application provider, notes that it already ``sends
a bounce back message to users alerting the user that the 911 address
is not recognized.''
24. Most recently, however, the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement states
that ``[b]efore the deployment of Text-to-911, the signatory service
providers will implement a bounce-back (auto-reply) message to alert
subscribers attempting to text an emergency message to instead dial 9-
1-1 when Text-to-9-1-1 is unavailable * * *'' The Agreement further
states that these providers, the four major wireless carriers which
include Verizon and Sprint, ``will implement the bounce-back * * *
message by June 30, 2013.''
25. Discussion. We propose that CMRS providers and other providers
of text messaging services should be required to automatically notify
consumers attempting to text-to-911 in areas where text-to-911 is not
supported or in other instances where the text cannot be transmitted to
the PSAP. In this respect, there appears to be a clear benefit to
persons in emergency situations being able to know immediately if a
text message has been delivered to the proper authorities. This
automatic feedback may be life-saving, allowing a person in need of
assistance to immediately seek out an alternative. Providing this type
of error message may also be particularly critical during the
transition to NG911, as the record to date suggests there are likely to
be numerous instances where consumers attempt to send text messages to
PSAPs in areas where text-to-911 is not yet available.
26. We disagree with the assertion that there is no need for a
bounce-back requirement because certain wireless carriers already
voluntarily provide automatic error messages when customers attempt to
text-to-911 in areas where it is not supported. Rather, we believe that
all CMRS providers and other prospective text-to-911 service providers
should implement this safeguard so that consumers have the assurance
that they will receive automatic notification regardless of which
provider they choose. While consumer education (as discussed below) may
help to mitigate this risk, the possibility remains that without such a
requirement, a consumer without knowledge of where text-to-911 is
supported could attempt to send a text message to 911 and mistakenly
believe that the text has been successfully transmitted to the PSAP.
27. Moreover, in view of the four carriers' commitment in the
Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement to implement a bounce-back message by the
end of June 2013, a proactive approach for requiring automatic error
messages appears to be feasible at a reasonable cost, especially in
comparison to the public safety benefits that an automatic error
message can provide consumers. The Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement states
that the four major wireless carriers ``will meet [the] commitments [in
the Agreement] independent of the [carriers] ability to recover these
associated costs from state or local governments.'' We believe that
this representation indicates that the costs for implementing a bounce-
back message are manageable, regardless of whether such costs are
recoverable under current state or local cost recovery programs.
However, we seek comment on this view, particularly in regard to the
impact that the costs to meet the bounce-back requirement might have on
small and rural CMRS providers compared to the public safety benefits
for their subscribers.
28. We seek comment on the appropriate timeframe for CMRS providers
to implement a bounce back messaging capability. Whether or not CMRS
providers have developed text-to-911 capability, the record to date
appears to demonstrate that it is technically feasible for them to
provide an automated ``bounce-back'' text message in such circumstances
instructing the sender to make a voice 911 call, and that many carriers
already provide this message voluntarily. We recognize that CMRS
providers other than the four major carriers may need to address
certain technical and operational issues in order to meet our proposed
notification requirement. Nevertheless, we believe that a solution
should be implemented as quickly as possible to avoid the risk of
consumer confusion. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether it is
feasible for all CMRS providers to provide their customers with an
automatic notification by the June 30, 2013 date specified in the
Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement. We seek comment on this timeframe, and any
significant technical issues that would bear on the achievability of an
automatic error message within that time frame by small, regional, or
rural CMRS providers.
29. We also propose to require prospective providers of
interconnected text service to develop an automated error message
capability. In order to reduce potential consumer confusion and enhance
the ability of consumers to communicate by text in emergencies using
the applications they are most familiar with from everyday use, we
believe that the ``bounce-back'' requirement proposed for CMRS
providers above should also apply, to the extent feasible, to all
providers of software applications that enable a consumer to send text
messages to text-capable U.S. mobile telephone numbers and receive text
messages from the same when a user of the application attempts to send
an emergency text in an area where text-to-911 is not supported or the
provider is otherwise unable to transmit the text to the PSAP.
30. We clarify that we do not propose to extend text-to-911
obligations to IP-based messaging applications that support
communication with a defined set of users of compatible applications
but do not support general communication with text-capable
[[Page 1803]]
telephone numbers. We believe it is less likely that consumers will
expect such applications to support emergency communications.
Nevertheless, we encourage providers of such messaging applications to
inform their users that these applications do not support communication
to 911. We seek comment on this approach. Are there other ``flavors''
of third-party text messaging applications that should not be included?
Why?
31. We seek comment on the feasibility and cost of third-party
providers to implement such an automatic notification and whether they
must address any unique technical issues not faced by CMRS providers in
executing this requirement. We also seek comment on whether it is
feasible timeframe for third-party providers to implement the automatic
notification requirement by June 30, 2013, or whether we should adopt a
longer timetable.
32. We clarify that with respect to both CMRS providers and
interconnected text providers, our proposed requirement for automatic
notification to consumers would only apply to situations where the
provider (or the provider's text-to-911 vendor) has direct control over
the transmission of the text message and is unable to transmit the text
message to the PSAP serving the texting party's location, whether due
to network congestion, the inability of the PSAP to accept such
messages, or otherwise. Thus, for example, a CMRS provider would not be
required to provide automatic notification where the consumer uses a
text application provided by a third party that the carrier does not
control. Similarly, notification would not be required where the
provider is able to transmit the text to the PSAP, but a failure in the
PSAP network results in the text not being delivered to a 911 operator.
We seek comment on our proposal. We also clarify that we do not propose
to require all text-to-911 providers to use the exact same wording for
their automatic error messages to consumers. Rather, we propose that
providers would be deemed to have met our requirement so long as the
error message includes information on how to contact the PSAP. For
example, an automated message that advises the consumer to place a
voice call to 911 would meet the proposed requirement. We would,
however, encourage carriers to work with public safety organizations
and consumer organizations, including disability organizations, on a
common error message text to simplify consumer education. We seek
comment on this approach.
2. Consumer Expectations and Education
33. Background. The Notice sought comment on how to ensure that
consumers are informed about the availability and non-availability of
text-to-911 in specific areas. Specifically, the Notice sought comment
on the expected costs and benefits of various approaches to consumer
education and disclosure mechanisms, whether contractual or cost
considerations would deter consumers from texting or sending photos or
video to 911, and if so, whether providers or the Commission should
develop practices to remedy that situation. It also sought comment on
what types of educational programs could be created to reduce and/or
prevent consumer confusion as text-to-911 is deployed in the short
term, what the appropriate role is for the Commission and for other
government and private sector entities in any public education effort,
and whether other resources could be developed to help individuals
learn about where text-to-911 services are and are not available.
34. Public safety commenters generally agree that there is a
significant need for a nationwide effort to educate the public and
prevent consumer confusion while text-to-911 is being rolled out. For
example, the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)
conducted a recent survey which noted that approximately one-third of
their population believe they can text 9-1-1 today. APCO argues that
``NG9-1-1 and the capabilities for data and multimedia will require a
focused and funded public education plan. Consumers must be made aware
of the limitations of 9-1-1 location accuracy and they must be
cognizant of the role that they need to play in `managing their
emergency.' '' APCO urges the public and private sector to ``unite to
provide a national campaign targeted at public education of NG 9-1-1 as
it becomes available,'' and offers to help ``craft and disseminate an
agreed upon curriculum.'' NASNA supports focusing educational efforts
on ``discrete groups that would receive substantial and meaningful
benefits'' from near-term deployment of text-to-911, ``such as the deaf
and hard of hearing.'' NASNA suggests these focused educational efforts
``could provide a model when texting-to-9-1-1 is deployed on a
permanent basis.'' NENA ``encourages the Commission'' to implement a
campaign to ``provid[e] states, regions, and localities with template
materials such as canned video, audio, and print materials'' that
``could provide enormous economies of scale * * * and help local 9-1-1
systems and centers to effectively educate the public about the roll-
out of new system capabilities.'' NENA also contends that ``it is
imperative that any text-to-9-1-1 solution that relies on a digit
string or short code incorporate the digits `9-1-1' '' because
``[d]oing so will help to minimize consumer confusion and reduce public
education costs.''
35. Industry commenters also stress the importance of consumer
education and the need for both public and private sector participation
in education efforts. CTIA stresses that ``consumer education requires
that federal and state entities, as well as Public Safety agencies and
consumer representatives, participate in the consumer education
process, and that the responsibility not be left solely to the wireless
industry.'' CTIA also supports the concept presented in the Notice of
developing a consumer-focused map or Web site that would provide
information on the text-capability of specific PSAPs, but notes that
``the cost of developing and updating such resources is an issue that
should be considered in developing a map or similar consumer education
campaign.''
36. Discussion. We agree with commenters that educating the public
is critical to the successful roll-out of text-to-911 and preventing
consumer confusion. Adding text capability to the 911 system is not
likely to occur uniformly: during the transition period, the
availability of text-to-911 will vary by area, and the areas of
availability will change over time as the transition progresses. The
Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement recognized this and the signatory providers
agreed to ``work with APCO, NENA, and the FCC to develop an outreach
effort to set and manage consumer expectations regarding the
availability/limitations of the Text-to-911 service (including when
roaming) and the benefits of using voice calls to 911 whenever
possible, and support APCO and NENA's effort to educate PSAPs on Text-
to-911 generally.'' Therefore, as we initiate the transition, a
concerted effort will be needed to provide the public with accurate and
up-to-date information regarding where text-to-911 is--and is not--
available.
37. Aside from educating the public about the availability or
unavailability of text-to-911, education is also imperative to inform
the public about the capabilities and limitations of text-to-911 where
it is available, and the circumstances under which texting 911 is or is
not preferable to making a 911 voice call. The public needs to be aware
that text may not provide all of the
[[Page 1804]]
features and functionalities associated with voice 911 service, such as
automatic location. Similarly, the public needs to be aware that, while
sending an emergency text may be preferred in instances where the
sender is unable to communicate by voice (e.g., due to a speech or
hearing disability, or in a hostage or abuse situation where voice
calling could be dangerous to the caller), in most other instances,
placing a voice call to 911 will continue to be the most effective
means of communicating with emergency responders, and therefore will
remain the strongly preferable option even where text is available.
38. Given the clear need for consumer education, we direct the
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau and the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau to implement a comprehensive consumer
education program concerning text-to-911, and to coordinate their
efforts with state and local 911 authorities, other federal and state
agencies, public safety organizations, industry, disability
organizations, and consumer groups, consistent with those voluntary
measures taken under the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement. To assist in the
development of this program, we seek comment on what educational tools
and resources exist or need to be developed to combat consumer
confusion as text-to-911 is deployed. To what degree can current 911
educational programs be adapted to help consumers understand the
availability, capability, and appropriate use of text-to-911? How do we
ensure that education and outreach efforts on text-to-911 are fully
accessible to people with disabilities? Are there lessons that we can
draw from educational efforts that were conducted during the deployment
of basic 911 or E911 service? Have other countries developed text-to-
911 education programs?
39. We also seek comment on whether CMRS and interconnected text
providers should provide educational information to their subscribers
about the availability and use of text-to-911. The signatory providers
in the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement agreed to work with APCO, NENA and
the Commission to develop an outreach effort to ``set and manage
consumer expectations'' regarding text-to-911. Should carriers also
provide information regarding the text-to-911 capabilities of specific
wireless devices that operate on their networks?
40. Would it be feasible to provide consumers with the ability to
test text-to-911 functionality in their devices? Allowing customers to
send simulated or test 911 messages could have benefits by enabling
customers to verify the availability of text-to-911 and familiarize
themselves with its use. However, any test mechanism would need to be
configured to avoid burdening PSAPs with unnecessary text messages,
e.g., by having the carrier or 911 text services provider reply to test
messages with an automated response. We seek comment on technical and
cost issues associated with developing such a test capability.
41. Who should bear the primary responsibility for educating
consumers on the limits of text-to-911? The Commission? CMRS and
interconnected text providers? Public safety organizations? Should the
Commission establish a joint effort in conjunction with CMRS and
interconnected text providers and public safety to implement an
education effort? To what extent should consumer groups, including
organizations representing the interests of people with disabilities,
be included in such efforts? Should the educational effort be federal,
regional, state, or local-level? What safeguards and measures should be
taken to ensure that education and outreach efforts on text-to-911 and
its limitations are fully accessible to people with disabilities? Can
the ability to send test text messages to a PSAP facilitate consumer
education? Could the database described in Bandwidth.com's comments be
used to automatically generate up-to-date consumer-facing maps of where
text-to-911 is available?
B. Comprehensive Text-to-911 Proposals
1. Further Background
42. The Commission has previously highlighted the popularity and
ubiquity of text messaging, the increasing public expectation that
consumers should be able to text to 911 during an emergency, and the
importance of text to 911 for people with disabilities. American
consumers send billions of SMS text messages per day and more than two-
thirds of mobile phone users have used text messaging. Moreover, many
of these consumers are acquiring advanced mobile devices (e.g., 3G and
4G devices) that enable them to send text messages using ``over-the-
top'' software applications that they install on their phones and other
mobile devices. Additionally, text messaging will likely play an
integral role in providing future 911 services for persons with
communications disabilities. Hence, any discussion about the near-term
deployment of text-to-911 must consider both SMS and currently
available, as well as anticipated, software applications as potential
platforms.
43. The record in response to the Notice indicates that NG911 will
eventually be capable of supporting the full range of possible
multimedia-to-911 communications, including transmission of text,
photos, video, and data. However, due to the complexity and cost of
deploying NG911 infrastructure on a national scale, full deployment of
NG911 will not be uniform and will likely take years. At the same time,
the record indicates that it is technically feasible for CMRS providers
to implement text-to-911 using existing technologies prior to full
deployment of NG911, as evidenced by the successful trials and
demonstrations noted above, the University of Colorado and Intrado
technical studies, and the fact that the four largest nationwide
wireless carriers committed to deploy text-to-911 capability throughout
their networks by May 15, 2014. Thus, text-to-911 could be made
available to virtually all wireless customers in the near term and
delivered to both ``NG-capable'' and ``pre-NG'' PSAPs at a reasonable
cost to wireless carriers.
44. As discussed below, we believe that enabling consumers to send
a text message to 911 in the near term will substantially improve
accessibility to emergency services, particularly for people with
hearing and speech disabilities. While we recognize that text-to-911
based on pre-NG technologies does not provide the full functionality of
NG911-based text, and that it has certain limitations in comparison to
voice-based 911, we believe that these limitations are outweighed by
the substantial public safety benefits that near-term implementation of
text-to-911 would yield. In addition, implementing text-to-911 in the
near term will provide valuable real-world operational experience that
will help consumers, PSAPs and service providers plan for full NG911
deployment. Moreover, the availability of text-to-911 will provide
incentives for PSAPs to acquire Internet Protocol (IP) connectivity and
NG911-capable customer premise equipment (CPE), which are both critical
steps towards the full deployment of NG-911. We seek comment on these
observations.
45. We also believe that adopting a mandatory regulatory framework
and timetable for implementation of text-to-911 is necessary. We
recognize that substantial progress has been achieved through the
voluntary initiatives of the four major CMRS providers, 911 service
providers, and PSAPs described above. However, we are concerned that
continuing to rely solely on voluntary measures could result in the
four major
[[Page 1805]]
CMRS providers implementing text-to-911 while other service providers--
including regional, small, and rural CMRS providers and third party
interconnected text providers--do not, or could lead to non-uniform and
uncoordinated implementation, inconsistent technological approaches,
and widely varying implementation timelines to the detriment of
consumers. This in turn could lead to a longer transition period,
increased transition costs, and increased consumer confusion regarding
when and where text-to-911 will be supported, what functionality it
will provide, and when and how consumers should use it where it is
available. We seek comment on this analysis.
46. Public safety commenters made a number of ex parte submissions
in the record highlighting the importance of deploying text-to-911
services. NENA conducted a comprehensive study and reported that the
majority of its chapters would support a requirement for wireless
carriers to provide text-to-911 services to their customers. APCO
argued that ``deferring action on the basic [text-to-911] requirement
would only lead to uncertainty and delay serious consideration of
implementation issues and requirements.'' NCTCOG submitted an ex parte
noting that the public expects to be able text-to-911 and highlighted
that ``a recent market study * * * showed that approximately \1/3\ of
our population believe they can text 9-1-1 today.'' The Maine Public
Utilities Commission noted that ``increasingly [persons with
disabilities are] abandoning the use of TTYs for new technologies such
as text messaging that allow them more flexibility to communicate with
most others except 9-1-1.''
47. We believe that a mandatory regulatory framework that builds on
existing voluntary initiatives will mitigate these risks by providing a
common deadline for the implementation of text-to-911. Moreover, while
under our proposal PSAPs will still have the option to choose whether
to accept text messages, greater uniformity in availability will
enhance PSAP options and make it easier to justify investments in
upgrades. Uniformity will also promote coordinated and consistent
deployment by establishing a set of baseline requirements for all CMRS
providers and third-party interconnected text providers to meet.
Finally, it will provide greater certainty to consumers regarding text-
to-911 availability, functions, and usage. Given the these substantial
benefits, we believe that the public interest is served by requiring
CMRS providers and third-party interconnected text providers to supply
text-to-911 capabilities to their customers on all text-capable
devices. We seek comment on this analysis and on possible timelines and
technical options for implementation of these proposed requirements.
2. Public Safety Benefits of Text-to-911
48. The record indicates that text-to-911 can offer significant
public safety benefits, most notably: (1) Widespread consumer
availability and ease of use, (2) enhanced accessibility to 911 for
people with hearing and speech disabilities, and (3) an alternative
means of emergency communication for the general public when 911 voice
service is unavailable or when voice calling could endanger the caller.
We note that text-to-911 service may also permit ``text-takers'' to
open multiple texts and prioritize the most life-threatening situations
first, rather than waiting to address calls based simply on the order
in which they arrived.
a. Availability and Ease of Use
49. The effectiveness of the legacy voice 911 system derives in
large part from its ease of use by consumers, and their familiarity and
comfort with voice calling on everyday devices. It is much easier for
people faced with the stress of emergency situations to communicate
quickly and effectively when they are able to use the same technologies
that they use for everyday communications. This principle, which has
long applied to voice calling, is increasingly true for communication
by text as well. More than 2 trillion text messages are sent annually
and according to the Pew Center, more than 7 out of 10 cell phone users
send or receive text messages. Another report suggests that 91 percent
of smartphone owners actively use SMS. Thus, expanding existing text
technology to support 911 will provide the public with a familiar mode
of communication for emergency use.
b. Enhanced Accessibility for People With Disabilities
50. Currently, approximately 15 percent of the United States
population, or 34.5 million people, have hearing disabilities and
approximately 7.5 million people have difficulty using their voices.
Moreover, there is a strong relationship between age and reported
hearing loss. For example, 18 percent of American adults 45-64 years
old have a hearing loss, 30 percent of adults 65-74 years old have a
hearing loss, and 47 percent of adults 75 years old or older have a
hearing loss. By 2030, 20 percent of the population will be over 65
years old, substantially increasing the number of Americans who may
need alternatives to voice communications when accessing 911. Further,
an increasing number of soldiers are returning from overseas and are
experiencing traumatic brain injury, which can result in hearing or
speech disabilities.
51. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted
in 1990 requires PSAPs to provide persons with hearing or speech
disabilities with direct access to 911 emergency services. Since 1991,
the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has implemented this provision by
requiring all public safety agencies to make their telephone emergency
services directly accessible to TTYs. In the Notice, however, the
Commission explained that people with hearing and speech disabilities
have increasingly migrated away from specialized legacy devices, such
as TTYs, and towards more widely available forms of text communications
because of the ease of access, availability, and practicability of
modern text-capable communications devices. While the migration to
widely available texting technologies has had the unique benefit of
bringing prior TTY users into the mainstream of our nation's
communications systems, this transition has also led some commenters to
suggest that it leaves people with hearing and speech disabilities
without an effective, reliable and direct means of accessing 911
services in the event of an emergency.
52. The EAAC noted that individuals who cannot hear or speak well
enough to communicate with 911 currently have no direct means of
accessing 911 when mobile other than TTYs. However, with the vast
majority of people with hearing and speech disabilities having
discarded their TTYs, these devices are no longer considered a viable
means of directly accessing 911 for this population. Nevertheless, the
EAAC found that many individuals who are deaf have service plans that
include SMS. One ``key finding'' of the EAAC is that ``individuals with
disabilities should be able to call 9-1-1 using the same means they use
for everyday telecommunication.''
53. At present, individuals with disabilities who have stopped
using TTYs often have no other option but to rely on telecommunications
relay services (TRS) to access 911 emergency services. Text-based relay
services generally require an emergency call to first go to a
communications assistant (CA), who places the call to the PSAP. The CA
then relays the conversation back and forth between the caller and
[[Page 1806]]
the PSAP, by voicing all text that is typed by the person with a
disability to the PSAP call taker and typing back responses to the
caller. As such, many have criticized TRS as providing only an indirect
means of conveying information that may result in delays and
translation errors during an emergency. For example, Consumer Groups
note that IP-Relay, one text form of TRS, has not been widely embraced
by the deaf and hard of hearing community for requesting emergency
services because of the relatively long length of time it takes to
reach a relay operator and then get to the correct PSAP, the fact that
the call will generally arrive on a non-emergency line, and the
possibility of mistakes by the CA in the relaying of the call.
54. The record in this proceeding and the EAAC Report make clear
that a significant number of people with hearing and speech
disabilities will benefit from the ability to directly send a text
message to 911 from any device that is text-capable. Advocates for and
individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing strongly support
implementation of a near-term text-to-911 solution and disfavor text
relay approaches due to the risk of delay and translation errors.
Moreover, enabling direct text messaging to 911 by people with hearing
and speech disabilities will allow this population to use mass market
communication devices that have increasingly evolving capabilities.
While disability advocates have previously been skeptical of SMS-to-911
because it does not support real-time text, they have given more recent
support to SMS as a viable near-term solution because of its
familiarity and ease of use for people with disabilities. Respondents
to the EAAC survey expressed a clear preference for calling a PSAP
using the same technology that they use on a daily basis. Moreover,
87.7 percent of respondents reported having used SMS text messaging and
46.1 percent reported having used SMS text messaging ``almost every
day.''
55. Consumer Groups similarly urge the Commission to require the
deployment of SMS-to-911 technologies in the near term as a rapid and
practical means of significantly enhancing accessibility to the 911
system for people who are deaf and hard of hearing. Consumer Groups
point out that because consumers have already embraced SMS technology,
and the vast majority of wireless providers and manufacturers support
SMS, this capability may be deployed rather quickly. Likewise, the
Wireless Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC) ``strongly
supports'' the incorporation of SMS for the initial deployment of an NG
911 system. Similarly, the RERC on Telecommunications Access notes that
it is imperative for the Commission to ensure that mobile text
communication is available in the near term to people who are deaf.
c. Alternative Means of Emergency Communication for the General Public
56. The ability to send text messages to 911 will also provide an
important alternative means of emergency communication to the benefit
of the general public. While the general public will not need to use
text-to-911 services as frequently as people with hearing and speech
disabilities, experience has shown that there are situations where
being able to send a text message to 911 as opposed to placing a voice
call could be vital to the caller's safety. For example, in the 2007
shooting incident at Virginia Tech, a number of students attempted
unsuccessfully to send SMS text messages to 911 so as not to be heard
and located by the shooter. Similarly, in the Black Hawk County, Iowa
text-to-911 trial, text has been used in domestic and child abuse
situations in which the victim feared that the suspect would overhear
the call to 911. Additionally, the Vermont trial further demonstrated
text-to-911's efficacy in cases involving suicide and domestic
violence.
57. Text-to-911 can also provide a lifeline when voice networks are
impaired or congested. In large-scale disasters, for example, circuit-
switched landline and mobile networks may become overloaded, making it
difficult to place a 911 voice call. Conversely, SMS and IP-based text
messages to 911 can still be transmitted because text consumes far less
bandwidth than voice and may use different spectrum resources and
traffic channels. As TCS notes, ``[i]n situations in which a high 9-1-1
call volume results in blocked calls to the PSAP or situations in which
the wireless infrastructure capacity is impacted such that placing
voice calls is difficult or impossible, SMS communications to a PSAP
may provide the only reasonable communications method to emergency
services.'' TCS further notes that according to data it had drawn from
its CMRS provider customers, attempts to text-to-911 are made regularly
and the number of attempts to text-to-911 during the recent Hurricane
Sandy spiked sharply. TCS also highlights that unlike phone calls that
are be handled on a ``first-in, first-addressed'' basis without any
ability to know which queued up calls are priorities, a single ``text-
taker'' could open more than one text and ``attempt to address the more
urgent and life-threatening emergencies with greater priority.'' In
addition, the University of Colorado finds that ``text users and call
takers compose and read messages offline and only use communication for
the moment that the message needs to be sent [which] saves valuable
network resources during network congestion.'' Thus, people in disaster
areas may still be able to send text messages to 911 even if they
cannot place a voice call.
3. Technical Feasibility, Timing and Cost of Text to 911
58. Balanced against the above-described benefits of text-to-911,
we believe that the record indicates that text-to-911 is technically
feasible and can be achieved in the near term at a reasonable cost to
PSAPs, CMRS providers, and providers of interconnected text. We
disagree with commenters who argue that the Commission should not act
until NG911 is fully deployed. As we note above, it will likely take a
number of years to deploy NG911 on a national scale. The record also
indicates that it is technically feasible for CMRS providers to
implement a text-to-911 solution using existing technologies prior to
the full deployment of NG911, and we believe the same should be true
for interconnected text providers. Thus, text-to-911 could be made
available to virtually all wireless customers in the near-term and
delivered to both ``NG-capable'' and ``pre-NG'' PSAPs at a reasonable
cost to wireless carriers. In this respect, we also believe that
investments made now by PSAPs and carriers to support text-to-911 can
be leveraged to support NG911 deployments, and accordingly constitute
building blocks towards an IP-based emergency network. For example,
while some PSAPs may choose to implement text-to-911 through existing
equipment, such as TTY terminals, other PSAPs may choose to upgrade
their equipment to receive text messages in a manner that will also
support additional data in an NG911 environment.
59. We disagree with MetroPCS's argument that any text-to-911
obligations should ``only be imposed on the largest nationwide carriers
because the costs of increased regulations are more easily borne by the
largest carriers.'' There is no evidence that the cost of implementing
a text-to-911 solution will be substantial enough to warrant limiting
the obligation to the largest carriers. In fact, the first text-to-911
trial in the nation was conducted in Black Hawk County, Iowa by a small
[[Page 1807]]
wireless carrier. Further, we believe that exempting certain wireless
carriers from a text-to-911 obligation solely on the basis of size
would create additional consumer confusion, because consumers would
still be unsure of whether their wireless carrier provides text-to-911
service or not. We seek comment on these views.
60. Based on these findings and consistent with the Carrier-NENA-
APCO Agreement, we propose that all CMRS providers and interconnected
text providers should be required to implement the capability to
support text-to-911 in their networks. Because SMS is the most common
texting technology in use today, and virtually all wireless consumers
already have access to it and are familiar with its use, we expect that
most CMRS providers will initially support SMS-based text-to-911. At
the same time, we recognize that CMRS providers may eventually seek to
migrate customers away from SMS to other text applications, such as IP-
based real-time text or Rich Communication Services (RCS). Therefore,
we do not propose to require CMRS providers to support SMS-based text-
to-911 so long as they provide their customers with at least one pre-
installed text-to-911 option per device model that works across the
provider's entire network coverage area. We propose to allow CMRS
providers to select any reliable method or methods (e.g., mobile-
switched, IP-based) for text routing and delivery. We seek comment on
this proposal.
a. Impact on PSAPs
61. As noted above, public safety commenters generally support the
implementation of text-to-911 in the near term as a first step in the
transition to NG911. NENA notes that SMS is ``the prevailing consumer
text mode in the United States,'' and that in addition to being the
most widely available platform, SMS ``is also the most interoperable,
working between nearly every device on every network in the United
States.'' NENA also notes that Verizon's text-to-911 announcement
indicates that ``SMS-to-911 capabilities can be technically feasible.''
NATOA, NACo, and NLC state that they support the use of SMS as ``an
interim solution for text-based communication to 911,'' since it is
``particularly beneficial to people with disabilities, including people
who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech impediments.''
62. Black Hawk County highlights that it has not encountered any
text-related problems during its trial and notes that ``SMS text-to-911
is reliable and available, as clearly demonstrated in our project.''
BRETSA and the Colorado 9-1-1 Task Force state that ``the key advantage
of text messaging to 9-1-1 will be in facilitating communications with
the PSAP by speech and/or hearing impaired individuals. Text messaging
is generally preferred by the speech and hearing impaired community
over TTY communications because it is more portable, ubiquitous, and
convenient.'' Vermont argues that fears over the volume of emergency
text messages are ``overblown'' and ``remain[s] convinced that those
who can make a voice call will make a voice call as that is the most
efficient way to communicate in an emergency.''
63. While public safety entities generally regard near-term text-
to-911 as feasible, some express concern about the potential cost of
implementation and the impact on PSAP resources if text-to-911 results
in a heavy influx of text messages. The State of California states that
``[s]hort-term implementation of text-to-911 will likely increase the
time and resources required for PSAPs to process information as
compared to handling voice calls.'' APCO states that ``[w]hile SMS may
be appropriate as a near-term solution for limited circumstances, it is
not a long-term solution for the general public.'' NASNA opposes
encouraging wide-spread deployment of short-term SMS-based solutions
``[u]ntil such time as text-delivery standards are developed, adopted
and compliance is assured.'' Finally, BRETSA and the Colorado 911 Task
Force argue that ``devoting funds to an interim solution for text
messaging may mean that less funds will be available in the future for
a more effective solution, once NG9-1-1 has been deployed and PSAP
systems updated to take advantage of NG9-1-1.''
64. Based on the record in this proceeding, the Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement, and the success of the various technology trials noted
above, we believe that the implementation of text-to-911 will not
impose an undue burden on PSAP operations. First, under our proposed
framework, PSAPs will retain the discretion to decide whether to accept
text messages. Thus, if a PSAP chooses not to accept text messages,
there would be no requirement for it to do so and therefore no cost to
the PSAP. We believe that PSAPs are able to best understand their local
technological and financial situation, and determine whether it is
technically and financially feasible or desirable to implement text-to-
911 in their service area. While we share BRETSA and the Colorado 911
Task Force's funding concerns, we believe that PSAPs will be in the
best position to understand their ongoing NG911 funding needs.
Additionally, as much of the architecture for text-to-911 service can
be leveraged for NG911, we do not expect that funding text-to-911 will
divert resources from funding future NG911 services. Second, as
discussed in greater below, for PSAPs that elect to accept text
messages, we propose several options for the receipt of text messages,
including options that will impose minimal costs on the PSAP. Third,
while we recognize that the technology trials noted above are limited
in scope, the trial results suggest that PSAPs are not likely to become
overwhelmed with text messages.
b. Impact on CMRS Providers and Interconnected Text Providers
65. In response to the Notice, CMRS commenters initially opposed a
near-term text-to-911 mandate and argued that the Commission should
instead focus its efforts on long-term NG911 solutions. These
commenters cited a variety of concerns with implementing text-to-911
prior to the full development of next-generation solutions, including
technical limitations, limited monetary resources, reliability and
security, issues with consumer education, and liability protection.
Notwithstanding some of these concerns, however, the four major
wireless carriers voluntarily committed to deploy text-to-911
capability throughout their nationwide networks by May 15, 2014.
66. Further, the record indicates that the cost for CMRS providers
to implement a text-to-911 solution will be minimal. Indeed, according
to cost estimates that were submitted into the record by Intrado and
Bandwidth.com, the total cost for all CMRS providers to implement this
solution will be approximately $4 million annually. Based on our review
of the record, the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the cost estimates
provided by vendors, and the success of the text-to-911 trials and
demonstrations, we believe that it is feasible for all CMRS providers
to cost-effectively implement a text-to-911 solution in the near term.
We seek comment on this view. We also seek comment below on the
appropriate timetable for implementing our proposal in order to address
the concerns raised by CMRS commenters. We also seek comment on the
cost for interconnected text providers to implement a text-to-911
solution. More specifically, what are the likely initial and ongoing
costs for interconnected text providers? For routing purposes, can
interconnected text providers use the same service providers as CMRS
providers? If so, would the cost be similar? Would a per-incident
service model be feasible for
[[Page 1808]]
smaller interconnected text providers? Are there any other potential
costs that the Commission should consider? To that end, we seek
quantitative information for our cost-benefit analysis.
4. Cost-Benefit Case Study
67. States and localities collect approximately $2 billion in 911
fees and taxes annually for the operation and support of the legacy
voice-based 911 system. Most states have reported to the Commission
that ``they used the fees or surcharges that they collected for 911/
E911 service solely to fund the provision of 911/E911 service.''
Dependent on the regulatory mechanism set forth in each statute, states
distribute funding either to the carriers directly, or to a designated
state or local entity which then reimburses carriers. As we have noted
previously, the highest vendor estimate submitted in this record
regarding the cost to carriers to implement nationwide text-to-911
capability is $4 million annually, a mere fraction of the cost of the
current voice 911 system.
68. Balanced against this low cost, the implementation of text-to-
911 will provide substantial benefits both for people with disabilities
and the general public in a variety of scenarios. While not all of the
benefits associated with these scenarios are quantifiable, we have
conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the potential impact of text-to-
911 in the area of cardiac emergencies--a category that represents less
than 10 percent of 911 calls but for which detailed statistical
information is available. Even when we limit our analysis of benefits
to this subset of total emergencies, we find that the potential
benefits of text-to-911 for just this one category of 911 calls
outweighs the costs of implementing text-to-911 for all carriers and
PSAPs. We seek comment on our case study analysis below.
69. Our analysis is based on a 2002 study of cardiac emergencies in
Pennsylvania that found adoption of E911 to be associated with
improvements in the health status of patients, particularly those with
cardiac conditions. That Cardiac Study shows that, when precise
location information is provided contemporaneously with a 911 call,
response time is notably shortened and correlated with an over 34
percent reduction in mortality rates from cardiac arrest within the
first 48 hours following the incident.
70. The life-saving benefits demonstrated in the Cardiac Study
provide a useful reference point for assessing the importance of timely
and effective 911 communication to response time and positive outcomes
for medical emergencies. We therefore have extrapolated from the
Cardiac Study to determine the likely number of cases in which text-to-
911 might extend similar benefits to people with hearing and speech
disabilities who cannot use voice to contact 911, but who would be able
to communicate location information if text were available.
71. Based on the Cardiac Study, we calculate that for the voice-
based 911 system as a whole, improved response time resulting from
delivery of precise location information saves approximately 4,142
lives annually nationwide. To determine the proportionate benefit for
people with disabilities that would result from availability of text-
to-911, we consider only the 0.7 percent of the population with the
most severe hearing and speech impairments (0.5 percent for extreme
hearing difficulty and 0.2 percent for extreme speech difficulty).
Assuming a proportional number of 911 calls in cardiac emergencies from
this population, and limiting our calculation to intentional wireless
calls in which the hearing- or speech-disabled person cannot rely on a
speaking person to make the 911 call, we calculate that text-to-911
would save approximately 7 lives annually in cardiac emergencies. Using
an accepted statistical value-of-life model developed by the U.S.
Department of Transportation, we estimate the value of each life saved
to be $6.2 million. This yields a total benefit of $43.4 million
annually for cardiac victims alone, or more than ten times the highest
estimated cost of the rules proposed herein.
72. We emphasize that the benefits calculated above for cardiac
emergencies represent only a subset of the benefits that will be
generated by text-to-911. The record reflects numerous other benefits
that are less quantifiable but that may be similarly or even more
substantial. Black Hawk County and Vermont have cited concrete examples
where text-to-911 enabled callers to reach 911, but could not make a
voice call for safety reasons. Similarly, the record includes
additional compelling evidence that text-to-9-1-1 may provide
significant benefits in disaster scenarios due to the relatively high
reliability of SMS messages and the relatively low amount of network
capacity required to deliver an SMS message. These benefits, though not
specifically quantifiable, provide compelling evidence that the
aggregate benefits of text-to-911 will significantly exceed the
specific benefits quantified here--and will be generated at no
additional cost.
5. Reliability of Text-to-911
73. In response to the Notice, several commenters raise concerns
about the reliability of text-to-911, and particularly SMS-based text.
4G Americas notes that ``it found no short-term solution that did not
exhibit limitations with respect to capability, performance, and
impacts to users, network operators and/or PSAPs.'' CTIA states that
``SMS was not designed to be used as an emergency service'' and urges
the Commission to focus on the deployment of ``advanced 9-1-1 emergency
communications services in emerging wireless technologies.'' Other
commenters similarly assert that certain technical aspects of SMS limit
its reliability for emergency communications. Among the factors cited
are that SMS (1) is one-way rather than session-based; (2) lacks
delivery or performance guarantees, and may not inform the sender when
a text is not timely delivered; (3) does not prioritize emergency
messages; (4) does not assure that multiple messages will arrive in the
sequence they were sent; (5) does not support 911 location technologies
that are used for 911 voice calls; and (6) lacks protections against
transmission of spurious or fraudulent 911 messages.
74. Technical Studies. In response to the Notice, two commenters
conducted technical studies which present evidence that SMS-to-911 is
as reliable as voice, and in some instances, may be even more reliable
than voice. In the first study, researchers at the University of
Colorado tracked several hundred SMS text messages and found that ``the
reliability of text messages and mobile phone voice calls, in terms of
data loss, are very similar.'' The University of Colorado study ``found
that all of the text messages sent were received by the cellular
network, resulting in a `data loss rate' of 0% and a reliability level
of 100%.'' In addition, the University of Colorado study noted that
``[o]ther researchers have tested the reliability of * * * SMS * * *
and found that the `data loss rate' over several thousand messages was
less than 1%, resulting in a reliability level of 99%. The statistical
implication is that large samples might experience a small percentage
of data loss, but overall the reliability for text messages is similar
to that of voice calls.'' 4G Americas criticizes the University of
Colorado's findings and notes that the ``study was executed in an
academic environment with a pre-determined technology and setting. The
study did not involve a large number of subscribers, and hence, no
real-world traffic conditions.''
[[Page 1809]]
75. The University of Colorado study also found that text messaging
is actually more reliable than voice communications when a weak signal
exists, ``such as when the caller is in the mountains, in the midst of
high rise buildings, inside a building, under a collapsed building
following an earthquake or explosion, or in a trunk of a car [or]
closet.'' The University of Colorado notes that ``[c]ommunication at
the edge of coverage can be sporadic, allowing only momentary windows
of communications coverage that are not long enough to support a voice
call but a short burst of a text message can get through. In addition,
some implementations of SMS automatically keep trying to send a text
message until a transmission window opens.''
76. Intrado conducted the second technical study, in which it sent
``tens of thousands of actual SMS messages [from] a simulated PSAP to a
mobile device and from a mobile device to the simulated PSAP.'' The
study found that ``by using techniques such as the 9-1-1 SMSC [short
message service center], SMS can be used to create a very reliable and
timely 9-1-1 communication infrastructure.'' According to Intrado,
``90% [of the text messages] were delivered within 3-4 seconds.''
77. Discussion. While 4G Americas, CTIA, Motorola, and several
other commenters provide anecdotes about the limited reliability of
SMS-to-911, the University of Colorado and Intrado conducted the only
two technical studies on this issue. Notably, both of these studies
found that the reliability of SMS-to-911 is comparable to voice, and in
some instances, even more reliable than voice. Further, we believe that
the success of the existing trials, the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement,
and the continued rollout of text-to-911 services throughout the nation
demonstrate that industry has already overcome many of the reliability
deficiencies that were originally cited in the comments. While SMS was
certainly not designed for emergency communications, we disagree with
T-Mobile's claim that ``SMS is fundamentally unsuited for emergency
communications.'' Indeed, a life was saved in Vermont as a direct
result of Verizon's SMS-to-911 trial. Additionally, we note that, for
callers who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, reaching 911 by voice may not
be possible at all, so that even a mechanism that is not perfectly
reliable can provide significant benefit. For callers who are not deaf,
text-to-911 provides an additional way to reach PSAPs, thus increasing
the overall probability of obtaining help. Finally, we believe that our
proposal for wireless carriers to provide a ``bounce-back'' capability
will further mitigate reliability concerns. Accordingly, given the
significant benefits of text-to-911 service, we do not believe that
reliability concerns should delay the deployment of text-to-911. We
seek comment on this analysis.
6. Carrier and Third Party Non-SMS-Based Text-to-911 Applications
78. As technology and consumer habits evolve, consumer expectations
also change and the need to meet those expectations in times of
emergency must also evolve. As more consumers use SMS-substitutes,
whether provided by the underlying carrier or by a third party, it is
important that we evaluate ways to alleviate consumer confusion and
promote regulatory parity. We note, however, that despite this
proliferation of SMS-substitutes, the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement is
limited to SMS services provided by the signatory providers.
79. Accordingly, as discussed below, we are seeking comment on a
variety of issues associated with non-SMS messaging applications,
including ``over-the-top'' texting applications provided by third-
parties. In this regard, our focus is on those applications that are
most like SMS and therefore most likely to be the subject of a consumer
expectation that they may reach 911, namely those two-way texting
applications that allow text messages to be sent to any U.S. phone
number, irrespective of the hardware utilized to send that message.
80. Background. In the Notice, the Commission sought comment on
non-SMS text-to-911 alternatives, including IP-based messaging, real-
time text, and downloadable software applications. While noting the
potential advantages of SMS as an interim solution, the Commission also
sought comment on how to encourage the development of non-SMS options
that could provide more flexibility and functionality to consumers.
81. Commenters generally support allowing carriers and service
providers to develop alternatives to SMS-based text. NENA notes that
smartphone-based text-to-911 applications could lower costs for both
consumers and PSAPs and that ``because 9-1-1 text applications would
run on smartphones or advanced devices, their call streams could, in
some instances, operate outside the normal 911 voice call path.'' The
University of Colorado observes that ``there are an increasing number
of smartphone applications and other SMS short cuts that provide for
pre-stored and automatically composed messages, such as contact
information for an epileptic having a seizure, or to include location
[GPS] coordinates.'' Bandwidth.com notes that applications can be
``specifically geared toward enhancing the ability of the deaf and hard
of hearing to access public safety via texting.'' LR Kimball states
that ``[s]oftware applications that can integrate into the legacy 911
system should be the first choice in the short term to allow for more
complete access. * * * [and] should be developed in a way that makes
use of services currently in use at PSAPs.'' AT&T urges the Commission
to avoid imposing text-to-911 regime that would force carriers to
continue supporting SMS-based text-to-911 after SMS has become
technologically obsolete or economically uncompetitive.
82. In the Notice, the Commission also observed that consumers are
acquiring more advanced mobile devices (e.g., 3G and 4G handsets) that
enable them to install ``over-the-top'' software applications. In the
Notice, we sought comment on whether text-to-911 requirements should
apply to both CMRS and non-CMRS providers alike. The Commission sought
comment on the feasibility of using general texting or 911-specific
software applications to send text messages to PSAPs. The Commission
noted that both providers and third parties, including vendors that
provide services and equipment to PSAPs, could develop such
applications.
83. In response to the Notice, CTIA and AT&T noted the
proliferation of ``over-the-top'' software applications and highlighted
the need for the Commission to implement technology neutral regulations
that apply equally to both carrier-provided and non-carrier-provided
texting solutions. CTIA stated that ``it is * * * unclear how a
national SMS-based interim solution would work in the context of over-
the-top applications or other non-carrier-provided SMS solutions'' and
emphasizes that ``the [FCC] must * * * consider the severed link
between the licensed CMRS service provider and the emergency calling
capabilities, such as location accuracy, of end-user devices and over-
the-top applications.'' AT&T notes that: (1) ``limiting the mandate of
[t]ext-to-911 services to SMS services provided by telecommunications
carriers would be short-sighted, and thus a great disservice to the
general public[;]'' (2) a ``mandate that is exclusive to the SMS
platform fails to account for the fact that such services are
experiencing both declining revenues and usage due to the
[[Page 1810]]
proliferation of free [`over-the-top'] texting applications[;]'' and
(3) ``[t]he FCC must adopt a technologically-neutral solution that
applies equally to carrier-provided SMS services and competitive
alternatives to avoid distorting the marketplace to the detriment of
one service provider.'' AT&T further explains that ``failing to include
[`over-the-top'] substitutes in the mandate may cause significant
customer confusion regarding the accessibility of emergency services
via text message'' and that ``applying this mandate on a technology
neutral basis ensures that the effectiveness of the mandate does not
depend on the dominance of any platform or on the market position of
any group of service providers.'' Additionally, AT&T notes that
``including [`over-the-top'] providers in the scope of a text-to-911
mandate would assist ongoing industry standards work by encouraging
[those] providers to participate in * * * developing a text-to-911
solution.''
84. On the other hand, several entities express concerns about the
Commission extending text-to-911 obligations to ``over-the-top''
software applications. Sprint notes that ``[m]any * * * over-the-top
messaging providers are relatively small and likely may not have the
financial resources to achieve PSAP integration.'' Sprint also asserts
that ``it would not be able to control * * * third-party commercial
offerings nor influence how wireless consumers utilize such
applications.'' Further, Sprint highlights the limitations associated
with ``over-the-top'' software solutions, including the ability to
``obtain location information associated with a particular call.''
Similarly, U.S. Cellular states that it prefers text-to-911 to ``be
considered in the context of native SMS,'' and that it does not favor
covering over-the-top text applications. U.S. Cellular also notes that
``on some devices, SMS messages up-convert to MMS, and delivery of
those converted messages to PSAP[s] would need to be further
explored.'' Motorola Mobility maintains that ``any regulatory
responsibility for over-the-top text-to-911 applications, including
collection of precise location information, must rest only on the
application developer.''
85. The VON Coalition argues that ``there is no public policy
justification for extending SMS-to-911 obligations to over-the-top IP
text applications'' and maintains that ``[t]here is no evidence that
customers using over-the-top applications expect that they can use
these applications to contact emergency services.'' The VON Coalition
contends that ``[i]t seems highly unlikely that a wireless user with
both an SMS functionality and an over-the-top messaging application
would in some instances choose to open an application, sign in and then
send an `SMS' to a PSAP rather than simply using the wireless phone's
SMS capability that (a) the customer likely uses on a near-daily basis,
and (b) is readily available to the user without opening any
application or providing sign-in information.'' The VON Coalition
highlights that ``over-the-top messaging applications, which are
dependent on the availability of broadband Internet access, are less
reliable than a wireless carrier's SMS text services that require no
broadband availability and, moreover, very little bandwidth vis-
[agrave]-vis voice or other data communications on a wireless carrier's
network.'' The VON Coalition also notes that ``there currently are no
location solutions for over-the-top applications--neither for routing a
message to the appropriate PSAP nor to provide sufficient location
information associated with the caller.'' The VON Coalition adds that
``[b]ecause an over-the-top message is provided over another provider's
network--whether a wireless carrier, wireline carrier or a Wi-Fi
hotspot--there is no real-time location information associated with the
over-the-top message.'' Accordingly, the VON Coalition ``recommend[s]
that over-the-top IP-based messaging and text services that rely on the
mobile operator's data network should be excluded from an interim
[text-to-911 requirement] as they are precisely the type of
communications capability for which NG911 is intended.''
86. More recently, the VON Coalition reiterates these points and
further argues that the lack of user location information is an
impediment to enabling routing of an emergency text to the appropriate
PSAP. Moreover, they argue that implementing an interim solution
directed at text-to-911 may impact the transition to NG911, or may
stifle innovation and alter business models. Should the Commission
pursue a 911 obligation for IP-based SMS providers, the VON Coalition
urges that any obligation be limited to ``two-way'' over-the-top SMS,
so that a texting customer is able to receive a bounce-back message
where a PSAP is unable to receive text-to-911 messages.
87. Similarly, Apple urges the Commission, in addition to
considering the jurisdictional and technical issues associated with
implementing a text-to-911 obligation for over-the-top text messaging
application providers, to limit its proposals to those applications
that (1) are installed on a device that determines the user's location
using a technology that meets the enhanced 911 requirements set forth
in Section 20.18(h) of the Commission's rules; and (2) independently
enables the user to send text-based messages to and receive text-based
messages from any valid North American Numbering Plan telephone number
via the short message service protocol.
88. Discussion. As smartphone technology and applications
proliferate, wireless consumers increasingly have the ability to send
and receive text messages using downloadable software applications.
These applications may be provided to the consumer by the underlying
wireless service provider or by third party software providers, and may
use one of a variety of text delivery methods. For example, some text
applications deliver text to mobile telephone numbers over the
carrier's existing mobile-switched SMS network, while other
applications deliver text over IP data networks, and some applications
support both delivery methods and can also deliver MMS content. Several
over-the-top applications hold themselves out as competitive
alternatives to CMRS-provided SMS services. In addition, some software
providers have developed 911-specific software applications for
smartphone users that are designed specifically to support
communication by text and other media with PSAPs that install and
operate the application. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, the
volume of SMS text messages per month sent by consumers has recently
dropped 3 percent, with the most likely explanation of this ``major
shift in mobile communications'' attributable to migration of these
messages to over-the-top messaging platforms. Another study suggests
that over 45 percent of smartphone owners use an SMS alternative such
as over-the-top messaging apps in addition to or in lieu of traditional
SMS. And while other analysts predict that SMS will continue to grow
globally through 2016, they further predict a large scale drop-off in
SMS in favor of over-the-top applications thereafter.
89. This trend towards development and use of new third-party text
applications has significant implications for the implementation of
text-to-911. While SMS is currently the most widely available and
heavily used texting method in the U.S., and is likely to remain so for
some time, consumer access to and use of third-party text applications
is likely to increase over time. As this occurs, some consumers may
choose to use such applications as their primary means of communicating
by text, relying less on SMS or possibly bypassing SMS entirely. In
that
[[Page 1811]]
eventuality, consumers that become familiar with software applications
by using them for everyday non-emergency communications will be
increasingly likely to prefer them for emergency communications.
Moreover, consumers faced with the pressure of an emergency may attempt
to use the most familiar application available to contact 911 even if
they are not certain that it will work.
90. Given this emerging trend for technology and consumer behavior
patterns, we believe it is important to consider whether certain third
party-provided text applications and carrier-provided applications
should be subject to text-to-911 obligations, particularly those that
hold themselves out as substitutes for carrier-provided SMS services.
In choosing to use a particular text application from a variety of
available options, consumers may not even be aware of the identity of
the party providing the application or the nature of network technology
that the application uses to deliver the text. Thus, imposing text-to-
911 requirements based on the identity of the provider or the delivery
technology could lead to some applications supporting text-to-911 while
other applications that are functionally similar from the consumer
perspective do not support text-to-911. In this respect, it may be
important to consider consumer expectations both now and in the future
as a matter of public safety, as well as to consider means to promote
competitive neutrality to ensure that like services are treated
comparably, thereby avoiding arbitrage created by artificial regulatory
distinctions.
91. As discussed above, consumers now have access to a wide variety
of tools that allow the sending of text messages on almost any
computing and communication device. However, as the VON Coalition
notes, consumers may not have the expectation to send text messages to
911 from all possible text applications, and some of these may face
significant technical difficulties in delivering text messages to the
correct PSAP, possibly depending on the platform the application is
running on. Thus, we divide text applications into two broad
categories, namely (1) interconnected text applications that use IP-
based protocols to deliver text messages to a service provider, which
the service provider then delivers the text messages to destinations
identified by a telephone number, using either IP-based or SMS
protocols, and (2) non-interconnected applications that only support
communication with a defined set of users of compatible applications
but do not support general communication with text-capable telephone
numbers. We seek comment on applying text-to-911 obligations on the
former category, but not the latter.
92. In this respect, we seek comment on the characteristics of
interconnected text applications to which text-to-911 obligation should
apply, if adopted. As described above, Apple suggests a two-prong
approach to determine whether an interconnected text application would
fall within the Commission's proposed text-to-911 obligations. The VON
Coalition similarly suggests that over-the-top applications should be
``two way'' in order for a text-to-911 obligation to attach. Are either
of these definitions appropriate? Are they too limited? Do these
characteristics conform to consumer expectations? For example, if a
text messaging application only provides for ``outbound-only''
messaging to a U.S. telephone number, would a consumer still expect to
be able to reach 911? Are there other characteristics that we should
take into account?
93. We also propose to treat providers of such non-SMS text
applications similarly to CMRS providers with respect to the obligation
to provide text-to-911 capability to their users within a defined
timeframe. By enabling text communication with any text-capable mobile
number, these ``interconnected text'' applications provide effectively
the same functionality that SMS provides currently. Therefore, we
believe the same text-to-911 obligations should apply on a technology-
neutral and provider-neutral basis. We seek comment on this proposal
generally and on the issues discussed below.
94. We also seek comment on whether third-party interconnected text
software providers face technical issues or obstacles in the
implementation of text-to-911 that could affect the extent to which a
text-to-911 requirement may be implemented, or the timeframe for such
implementation. Commenters agree that flexibility in implementation is
important to reduce the burden of deploying text-to-911. This is likely
to be particularly important for interconnected text applications,
since they are often designed by smaller enterprises. Do third-party
software providers face difficulties assuring that their application
works reliably on all hardware platforms, operating systems, and
operation system versions supported by the application? Do these
applications have access, possibly after asking for user permission, to
cell tower and/or geo location information via platform application
programming interfaces? Can applications warn users that disabling
location functionality for an application may interfere with the
ability to send text-to-911 messages? Could operating system providers
facilitate the access to location information for emergency calling and
texting purposes? If the text application cannot obtain location
information, under what circumstances can the application deliver the
text message to a gateway and have the gateway service determine the
approximate location of the message sender? Can texting applications
determine the cellular telephone number of handsets to help locate the
mobile device?
95. To facilitate discussion, we posit three possible
implementation choices and invite comment on their respective
advantages and disadvantages, as well as descriptions of additional
options. The descriptions are meant to be illustrative, and are not
meant to limit how implementers achieve the goal of providing text-to-
911 to users of their applications.
96. The first implementation option leverages the SMS application
programming interface (API) offered by common smartphone operating
systems. The interconnected text application would use the API to
deliver any text message addressed to 911, while using the application-
specific mechanism for all other, non-emergency messages. It appears
that many applications already separate messages by destination, as
they often only deliver messages using Internet protocols for certain
countries or regions.
97. In the second option, text-to-911 messages are handled the same
as any other text message and delivered to the SMS gateway provider
chosen by the application vendor. The gateway provider then delivers
those messages to text-capable destinations. This gateway provider
handles text messages addressed to 911 and delivers them to the
location-appropriate PSAP, possibly with the assistance of a third
party 911 message routing service.
98. Finally, in the third option, text-to-911 messages are
delivered via Internet application layer protocols to PSAPs, without
being converted to SMS along the way, using NG911 protocol mechanisms.
The messages can be delivered to PSAPs either by the provider of the
text messaging application or a third-party service provider.
99. Are there alternative mechanisms that might be used? Which of
these methods provides advantages or disadvantages for the application
developer? For the PSAP? For the consumer? Which options are more
likely to transition seamlessly to NG911, or provide a foundation that
can be
[[Page 1812]]
leveraged by one or more of the parties in the NG911 delivery chain?
How do these options differ in terms of implementation complexity,
reliance on technologies not readily available, cost to the text
messaging provider or reliability?
100. Commenters have previously expressed concerns about the lack
of access by the third party provider to consumer location information
associated with a text-to-911 message, impacting both the ability to
deliver the text message to the appropriate PSAP and the ability to
locate the consumer seeking assistance. Which of the options described
above facilitate delivery of location information? Are there other
technical mechanisms or commercial arrangements that would facilitate
the ability of a third party text application to ascertain the location
from which the text originated? Can a requirement to provide text-to-
911 precede such an ability? Can privacy controls utilized by some
applications to limit access to location information interfere with the
ability to identify the origination of a text-to-911 message? Are there
other privacy concerns that need to be considered, or is it reasonable
to assume that a person sending a text to 911 implicitly waives such
privacy concerns? Can third party text messaging applications bypass
any privacy safeguards when 911 is the destination short code?
7. Timetable for Text-to-911 Implementation
101. We seek comment on whether all CMRS providers and
interconnected text providers should be required to implement the
capability to support text-to-911 throughout their networks by May 15,
2014. In light of the public safety benefits of making text-to-911
available to consumers regardless of carrier or service provider, and
the benefits to both PSAPs and consumers from coordinated
implementation, we believe it may be desirable for all CMRS providers,
including small and rural carriers, and all interconnected text
providers to implement text-to-911 capability in their networks on a
timetable comparable to the four largest wireless carriers. Setting a
single, uniform deadline for all providers would arguably facilitate
coordination among text-to-911 providers, vendors, and PSAPs, reduce
the likelihood of non-uniform deployment, and provide consumers with a
clear expectation of when text-to-911 will be supported regardless of
which carrier or service provider they use.
102. We seek comment on this approach. Would a uniform timetable
help minimize consumer confusion? Is such a uniform timeframe feasible,
or are there factors that could prevent small, rural, and regional CMRS
providers and third-party interconnected text providers from
implementing text-to-911 in the same timeframe as the four major CMRS
providers? For example, some parties have posited that the relatively
small size and lack of resources for certain applications developers
would limit their ability to comply with a text-to-911 requirement. Is
this accurate? Are there other factors we should consider?
103. The Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement also states that once a
``valid'' PSAP request is made for delivery of text messages, ``service
will be implemented within a reasonable amount of time of receiving
such request, not to exceed six months.'' Further, a request for
service will be ``considered valid if, at the time the request is made:
(a) the requesting PSAP represents that it is technically ready to
receive 9-1-1 text messages in the format requested; and (b) the
appropriate local or State 9-1-1 service governing authority has
specifically authorized the PSAP to accept and, by extension, the
signatory service provider to provide, text-to-911 service (and such
authorization is not subject to dispute).'' Are these reasonable
conditions? Is six months an appropriate timeframe? What steps does a
CMRS or interconnected text provider have to take to add a PSAP to its
list of text recipients and how much time are such steps likely to
take? Should the same timeframe apply for both CMRS providers and
interconnected text providers? Should this timeframe become shorter
over time as the process for responding to PSAP requests becomes more
established and routine?
8. 911 Short Code
104. Background. Short codes for mobile-switched text messaging are
administered by the Common Short Code Administration (CSCA) and are
typically five-digit or six-digit numbers. In the Notice, the
Commission sought comment on whether a national short code for text-to-
911 should be designated by the Commission, a standards-setting body,
or some other entity. The Commission also asked how the short code
should be designated or implemented.
105. Commenters in general agree that the Commission should
establish and reserve the digits `9-1-1' as a national short code for
text-to-911. Most notably, under the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the
four largest wireless carriers committed to ``implement a `9-1-1' short
code that can be used by customers to send text messages to 9-1-1.''
APCO notes that ``text-to-9-1-1 should involve the digits `9-1-1' and
not a different short code'' and that ``[a]ny short code other than 9-
1-1 will eventually need to be phased out as regions are able to accept
text solutions direct to the PSAPs via NG911.'' NENA urges that ``any
short code implemented must be uniform across carriers and geographic
or political boundaries.'' King County states that ``a national short
code, ideally using the digits 9-1-1, should be designated by Congress
or the [FCC], similar to the designation of 911 as the national
emergency number by Congress.'' AT&T argues that the Commission should
``establish and reserve a standardized SMS short code'' and that it
``makes sense to use some variation of the present abbreviated dialing
pattern 9-1-1 for this purpose.'' Intrado believes that ``an
appropriate text solution should use the digits 911.'' Motorola,
however, cautions that there may be technical issues associated with
using 911 as an SMS short code in some devices, and that ``end users
experiences in trying to use 911 as an SMS short code may be seriously
lacking.'' Nevertheless, Motorola notes that it ``has released well in
excess of 100 mobile devices and software combinations in the U.S.
market within the past three years, none of which has been tested for
support of 911 as a SMS short code.''
106. Discussion. The evolution of 911 as the national emergency
telephone number has resulted in the digits ``9-1-1'' being widely and
uniformly associated with emergency communication in the United States.
American consumers are familiar with dialing 911 to place an emergency
voice call, and children are routinely taught to dial 911 as the way to
summon help from police, fire, and ambulance service. This widespread
use and consumer recognition of 911 makes it logical and highly
desirable to implement 911 as a standard three-digit short code for
sending emergency text messages to PSAPs wherever and whenever
feasible.
107. Moreover, the general technical feasibility of using 911 as a
text short code appears to be established. In each of the text-to-911
trials that have occurred to date, subscribers of the participating
CMRS providers have been able to use 911 as the short code for text
messages to participating PSAPs. Moreover, under the Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement, the four largest wireless carriers committed to ``implement
a `9-1-1' short code that
[[Page 1813]]
can be used by customers to send text messages to 9-1-1.''
108. Given the apparent technical feasibility of a 911 short code
and the widespread consumer recognition of 911 as the standard
emergency number in the U.S., we do not believe that other CMRS
providers should encounter any substantial issues with using a 911
short code. We therefore propose that whenever technically feasible,
all CMRS providers should configure their networks and text-capable
cell phones to support 911 as the three-digit short code for emergency
text messages sent to PSAPs. We seek comment on this proposal. We also
seek comment on whether there are any text-capable cell phones being
sold in the United States that are incapable of using the digits 911 as
a short code. If so, what are those devices and how many of them are in
use? To what extent, if any, could such devices be modified or updated
by a consumer or wireless retail store to support a three-digit code?
In the event that certain devices cannot be so modified or updated,
should we designate an alternate short code (e.g., a five-digit code)
that such devices could use?
109. With respect to interconnected text applications, we recognize
that ``short codes'' per se may not be appropriate conceptually for
non-SMS texting. We therefore seek comment about whether there are any
technical obstacles or other issues associated with such applications
using the three-digit identifier 911. How can these issues, if any, be
addressed? Are they specific to particular applications, or to IP-text
messaging generally? Should interconnected text applications provide an
icon indicating the ability to reach text-to-911?
9. TTY Compatibility Requirement for Wireless Services and Handsets
110. The Commission first adopted a requirement for wireless
carriers to be capable of transmitting TTY calls to 911 services in
July 1996. Although the initial deadline set for implementation of this
requirement was October 1, 1997, efforts to find a technical solution
to support TTY (Baudot) technology over digital wireless systems ended
up taking years of research and testing. As a result, the Commission
granted multiple extensions of time for entities to comply with this
mandate, ultimately requiring compliance by June 30, 2002. At that
time, per the 1996 Order, wireless service providers were required to
upgrade their digital networks to be compatible with TTYs and handset
manufacturers were required to provide a means by which users could
select a TTY mode on their phone's menus. However, by the time these
changes were implemented, new digital technologies, more mobile and
less expensive, had caused most TTY users to migrate away from use of
these devices as their primary communication mode.
111. It is for this reason that the CVAA included a provision for
the EAAC to consider deadlines ``for the possible phase out of the use
of current-generation TTY technology to the extent that this technology
is replaced with more effective and efficient technologies and methods
to enable access to emergency services by individuals with
disabilities.'' ATIS points to this provision in recommending that the
Commission waive the TTY compatibility requirement for new wireless
handsets where such handsets support the ATIS INES Incubator
recommended solution. Specifically, ATIS argues that ``[w]hile PSAPs
and wireless networks should support TTY services for the foreseeable
future, the TTY requirement for wireless handsets may be a redundant
communication modality for future wireless handsets that support the
recommended ATIS INES Incubator solution.
112. As we noted earlier, the EAAC survey confirmed the declining
use of TTYs by people with disabilities as well as the need for new
forms of accessible communications to reach 911 services--including
text and video--by persons who have hearing or speech disabilities. The
decline in TTY usage is also reflected in the steep reduction in the
number of minutes of TTY-based TRS over the last several years. At the
same time, an estimated 100,000 users make approximately 20,000
emergency calls annually using TTY. In other words, while it is true
that TTY use is declining, TTY still provides an invaluable, real-time
911 service for its users. Additionally, no similar robust products
exist for mobile and IP-networks, where the expected lifetime of a
product is about two years as opposed to TTY's ten year expected
lifetime. Finally, users of TTY may not wish to switch to a new
communication mechanism with which they are not familiar.
113. Therefore, we seek further comment on whether the Commission
should sunset the TTY requirement for new handsets, and if so, what
criteria should be adopted before such action is taken. If the
Commission does sunset the TTY requirement for new wireless handsets,
should it do so only contingent upon a wireless texting capability? The
EAAC recommended that the Commission lift the TTY requirement only for
those handsets that have ``at a minimum real time text or, in an LTE
environment, IMS Multimedia Telephony that includes real-time text.''
In addition, the EAAC's 2012 Subcommittee on TTY Transition concluded
that ``[c]onsistent implementation of a well-defined `TTY replacement'
with higher functionality real-time text, simultaneous voice and better
mobility can fill an important need in accessible communication for
user to user calls, relayed calls and 9-1-1 calls.'' We seek comment on
these EAAC recommendations concerning the removal of the TTY
requirement. Should the ubiquitous use of SMS, alone or with other
forms of text capability, be a factor in determining whether to lift
the TTY requirement? Or, does the real-time nature of TTY communication
make it fundamentally different from SMS, such that SMS is not a valid
replacement for TTY-capable handsets?
10. Routing and Location Accuracy
114. In the Notice, the Commission sought comment on how to ensure
that text messages to 911 include accurate location information for
routing to the appropriate PSAP and for determination of the sender's
location by the PSAP. The record developed in response to the Notice
indicates that it is technically feasible to route text messages
originated on CMRS mobile switched networks to the appropriate PSAP
based on the cell sector from which the text originated. Therefore, we
propose to require CMRS providers (and their associated text-to-911
vendors) to use cell sector location to route 911 text messages
originated on their networks to the appropriate PSAP. We also seek
comment on any technical or informational challenges for third party
interconnected text providers with respect to determining caller
location and providing the appropriate routing. We do not propose at
this time to require provision of E911 Phase II location information in
conjunction with 911 text messages, although we encourage its provision
where technically feasible. We discuss these proposals in greater
detail below.
a. Routing of Text Messages to the Appropriate PSAP
115. Background. While the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement does not
speak specifically to routing issues, the signatory providers agreed to
provide text-to-911 on an interim ``best-efforts'' service subject to a
valid PSAP request. However, the provision of text-to-911 under the
Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement is limited to ``the capabilities
[[Page 1814]]
of the existing SMS service offered by a participating wireless service
provider on the home wireless network to which a wireless subscriber
originates an SMS message.'' Many commenters, including public safety
entities, argue that any text-to-911 solution must be capable of
routing text messages to the appropriate PSAP based on the sender's
location. APCO states that ``any solution must provide PSAP call
routing capability that is as good as or better than what is being
deployed today.'' BRETSA and the Colorado 9-1-1 Task Force agree that
``[t]he location of the caller must be available for the purposes of
routing the call to the correct PSAP.''
116. Focusing on SMS-to-911, some CMRS commenters contend that
there are technical difficulties in routing SMS messages to the correct
PSAP. The Blooston Rural Carriers claim that ``current SMS standards do
not support automated routing to the PSAP or automated location
information.'' Sprint Nextel states that ``location information is not
included with SMS text messages and would not be available for PSAP
routing.'' 4G Americas argues that ``SMS * * * provides no location
information--not even a cell tower--so the originating network may not
accurately route the message to the correct PSAP. Because the lack of
location and session information, false messages can be easily spoofed
* * * without the PSAP detecting the spoof.''
117. However, commenting vendors counter that even if SMS was not
initially designed to support automatic routing to PSAPs, it is
technologically feasible to add the capability to route SMS text
messages to a specific PSAP based on the sender's location. According
to Intrado, SMS messages can be routed to the appropriate PSAP by
adding a Text Positioning Center (TPC) to the existing wireless
network. Intrado states that the TPC will ``function like a [Mobile
Position Center] associated with wireless voice calls'' and that
``[u]pon a mobile device's initial text-to-911, the TPC will determine
the appropriate PSAP to which to route the text request for
assistance.'' Intrado also notes that the ``routing determination will
be based upon the location of the cell sector to which the mobile
device is connected.'' TCS similarly states that SMS messages can be
routed to the appropriate PSAP ``[b]y combining existing location
technologies with existing SMS protocol capabilities.'' The VON
Coalition also notes routing challenges for third-party over-the-top
application providers, which may not have direct access to caller
location.
118. Discussion. Verizon and TCS have indicated that they will use
coarse location as the basis for PSAP routing determination in their
deployment of text-to-911. Moreover, according to the Tennessee
Emergency Communications Board (TECB), ``[t]he TECB would not have
agreed to host the pilot [with AT&T] had it not included the capability
for location information to travel with the text. The Tennessee pilot
will include a texting solution that includes rough location
information.'' The coarse or rough location information as referred to
by Verizon and TECB is the equivalent to the location of the cell
sector from which the wireless 911 call is made--or generally E911
Phase I information under the Commission's E911 rules. Given the
apparent technical feasibility of cell sector location and its actual
use in text-to-911 trials to date, we propose that CMRS providers be
required to route text messages automatically to the appropriate PSAP
based on the cell sector to which the mobile device is connected. We
also propose to define the ``appropriate'' PSAP presumptively for text-
to-911 routing purposes to be the same PSAP that would receive 911
voice calls from the same cell sector. However, we recognize that in
some instances, state or local 911 authorities may wish to have text
messages routed to a different PSAP from the one that receives 911
voice calls from the same location (e.g., to have all 911 texts within
a state or region routed to a single central PSAP rather than to
individual local PSAPs). Therefore, we propose to allow designation of
an alternative PSAP for routing purposes based on notification by the
responsible state or local 911 authority. We seek comment on these
proposals. We also seek comment on whether there are any technical
obstacles or cost factors that could make it more difficult for some
CMRS providers, such as small or rural carriers, to support automated
routing of text messages to the appropriate PSAP.
119. We also seek comment on specific technical or informational
challenges that third-party over-the-top messaging applications
providers may face with respect to assessing caller location and the
associated PSAP. Apple, for example, suggests that text-to-911
obligations should only attach for third-party text messaging
applications where the applications is installed on a phone that meets
the Commission's location accuracy requirements. Will this be
sufficient to enable such applications to accurately route a 911 call
to the appropriate PSAP? Are there other agreements or protocols that
would be necessary between the third-party application provider and the
underlying carrier to ensure appropriate routing? What would these
entail?
120. Several commenters noted that spoofing could compromise the
accuracy of location-based routing of SMS text messages to PSAPs. We
note, however, that the proposed systems use systems not under the
control of the caller to query for cell tower location. SMS messaging
uses the same mechanism as calls to provide the originating number to
the network, and thus, there is no unique attribute of text messaging
that leaves it open to spoofing. We also note that the potential for
spoofing already exists for VoIP calls to 911. As Vermont indicates
with regard to its text-to-911 trial, ``there is nothing about this new
technology that is any more likely to result in `spoof' contacts than
what we already deal with on the voice side of the system.''
Accordingly, we seek comment on whether the potential for spoofing text
messages is any greater than the potential for spoofing VoIP calls. Are
there any actions that the Commission could take to minimize the risk
of text-based spoofing?
b. 911 Location Accuracy Requirements
121. Background. In the Notice, the Commission noted that some
parties had expressed concerns about the inability of SMS to provide
the sender's precise location. The Commission sought comment on ways to
overcome this limitation. Specifically, the Notice asked whether it is
technologically feasible for the recipient of an emergency SMS text
message to query for the texting party's location using the phone
number provided The Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement does not specifically
address location accuracy issues. However, the Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement does limit the provision of text-to-911 to ``the capabilities
of the existing SMS service offered by a participating wireless service
provider on the home wireless network to which a wireless subscriber
originates an SMS message.''
122. Commenters indicate that, while it is feasible to use cell
sector location to route emergency texts to the appropriate PSAP, it
may be more difficult for CMRS providers to provide more precise
location information in connection with text messages. Neustar notes
that ``some wireless operators use network based location determination
mechanisms that depend on the handset being in a voice call to receive
enough measurement data to determine the location of the caller
accurately. Such networks could not be expected to respond with high
resolution location information for texters. This will be true
[[Page 1815]]
for any SMS to 911 solution.'' On the other hand, TCS indicates that
its system would use ``the same location technologies and strategies
used today for 9-1-1 voice calls to both route the text message to the
appropriate PSAP, and for delivering a more precise location of the
sender to PSAP personnel.'' TCS notes, however, that ``the carrier's 9-
1-1 location platform may not be able to provide location outside of a
9-1-1 voice call'' and that ``coarse [location] may be the only
available location for initial service launch.'' The VON Coalition
expresses similar concerns with respect to providers of ``over-the-
top'' text messaging applications in terms of their inability to access
user location information.
123. Discussion. The record in this proceeding indicates that
providing precise location information in connection with text messages
is technically feasible but could involve significant changes and
upgrades to existing SMS-based text networks. We are therefore
concerned that it could initially be overly burdensome to require CMRS
providers to comply with the Commission's Phase II E911 location
accuracy rules when transmitting text messages to 911. While we
recognize the importance of providing precise location information to
PSAPs, we believe that the benefits of enabling consumers, particularly
consumers with hearing and speech disabilities, to send SMS-based or
non-SMS-based text messages to 911 outweigh the disadvantages of being
unable to provide precise location information. Accordingly, we propose
that the Commission's Phase II E911 location accuracy requirements not
apply to the initial implementation of text-to-911. Nevertheless, we
encourage the voluntary development of automatic location solutions for
text-to-911 that provide at least the same capability as Phase II
location information for voice calls to 911, even if the location
solution does not use the same underlying location infrastructure. For
example, messaging applications could transmit location information
that is available on handsets using the data channel. Further,
applications that use IP-based message delivery may also be able to
include location information obtained via a mobile device API along
with the text message. We also seek comment on whether operating system
vendors or CMRS providers can facilitate the delivery of more precise
location for interconnected text providers. Are there any other factors
that the Commission should consider in regard to location delivery for
interconnected text providers?
c. Roaming
124. Background. Roaming enables wireless consumers to use mobile
devices outside the geographical coverage area provided by their home
network operator. In the Notice, the Commission asked whether it is
technically feasible to determine the originating location of an
emergency text message in all situations or whether it is feasible only
in situations where the customer is not roaming. As noted above, the
Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement does not provide text-to-911 capability to
wireless subscribers roaming outside of a subscriber's home wireless
network. Because sending and receiving texts while roaming involves two
networks, the consumer's home network and the visited roaming network,
roaming may create issues for text-to-911 because of the greater
technical complexity of routing the message to the correct PSAP based
on the consumer's location. In the non-emergency context, when a
wireless consumer sends an SMS message while roaming on a visited
network, the visited network passes the text message via designated
signaling links to the user's home network, which in turn sends the
text message to its final destination.
125. Several commenters address text-to-911 in the context of
roaming customers. In considering vendor proposals for text-to-911
solutions, NENA contends that applicable location requirements must be
met regardless of whether a consumer initiates or continues a text-to-
911 string through the consumer's home network or a roaming partner.
Similarly, APCO argues that when a device roams to a visited network,
911 text messages must be capable of remaining connected with not only
the PSAP, but also the specific call taker. T-Mobile voices a number of
concerns about roaming, stating that ``SMS-to-911 does not work when
roaming.'' T-Mobile further notes that ``SMS for a T-Mobile customer
roaming on another carrier's network remains supported by T-Mobile's
network and messaging infrastructure, rather than by the carrier
providing roaming. However, T-Mobile will not have location information
when its subscriber is roaming, and thus can neither determine whether
a roaming subscriber is in an area that supports text-to-911 nor route
the 911 text to the appropriate PSAP.'' U.S. Cellular stresses ``the
need for the FNPRM to include a discussion regarding the need for
requirements to address customers sending texts to 911 while roaming
outside of their carrier's network and for the resulting need to
address interoperability across carrier networks.'' Finally, Sprint
Nextel urges the Commission to refer technical considerations like
roaming to technical working groups and standards-setting bodies for
further discussion.
126. Discussion. We agree with NENA and APCO that it is critical
for consumers who are roaming to have the ability to text-to-911 during
an emergency, and we further note that current voluntary measures do
not provide for text-to-911 service while a subscriber is roaming.
Accordingly, we seek comment on whether both the home and visited
network operators must cooperate to support the delivery of the text to
the appropriate PSAP serving the sender's location when a consumer
sends a text message to 911 while roaming. We also seek comment on T-
Mobile's assertion that its network is unable to collect location
information on a roaming subscriber and is thus, technically limited
from providing text-to-911 for roaming subscribers. Could the visited
network intercept text-to-911 messages and determine the mobile device
location? What technical and economic obstacles need to be addressed in
order to provide text-to-911 service to consumers? How can these
obstacles be overcome? We also seek comment on whether the same
approach should apply to international roamers while they are located
in the United States.
11. PSAP Options for Receiving Text-to-911
127. There appears to be general agreement that the NG911
architecture offers an IP standards-based interface protocol that
supports the delivery of text messages, regardless of the technology
used by the mobile device. While some PSAPs are currently NG911-
capable, or soon will be, many other PSAPs will not be NG911-capable
for an extended period of time, limiting their options for handling
text messages in the interim. Thus, in order to implement text-to-911,
particularly on a nationwide basis, the Commission must take the
disparate capabilities of PSAPs into account. Accordingly, we propose a
set of near-term options that would enable all PSAPs to accept text
messages transmitted by CMRS or interconnected text providers,
regardless of whether the PSAPs are NG911-capable. This proposed
approach provides non-NG911-capable PSAPs with the flexibility to
handle text messages in the near term without requiring PSAPs to fund
significant upfront investments or
[[Page 1816]]
upgrades. We seek comment on each option and the proposal as a whole.
a. NG911-Capable PSAPs
128. We propose that text-to-911 service providers deliver text
messages to NG911-capable PSAPs using a standardized NG911 protocol,
such as the NENA i3 protocol. This will ensure a consistent format for
delivery of text messages to all NG911-capable PSAPs. We seek comment
on this proposal. Should the current NENA i3 protocol be the single
protocol used for delivery of all text messages to NG911-capable PSAPs?
How should we account for future releases of NENA i3 that may support
additional protocol interfaces?
b. Non-NG911-Capable PSAPs
129. For non-NG911-capable PSAPs, several technical options are
available that could be used for receipt of text messages. For its
part, the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement allows PSAPs to ``select the
format for how messages are to be delivered.'' We propose that non-
NG911-capable PSAPs be allowed to choose among several options, and to
designate a preferred option and one or more fallback options.
(i) Web Browser
130. Under this option, a PSAP would receive text messages via a
web browser installed in the PSAP (typically at one or more terminals
used by PSAP call-takers) and connected to a third-party service
provider. Verizon Wireless and TCS have stated that with respect to
Verizon's roll-out of text-to-911, they will offer PSAPs the ability to
receive text messages using the web browser approach. TCS states that
it has ``demonstrated a D-IP SMS client application that runs in a web
browser and gives a PSAP call-taker who has connectivity to the IP-
messaging network the ability to receive, view, and respond to the SMS
9-1-1 call.'' This approach will require the PSAP to have Internet
connectivity, but not full NG911 capability.
131. We seek comment on the web browser approach. Because many
PSAPs already have Internet connectivity even if they are not NG911-
capable, we believe that this approach would offer PSAPs a cost-
effective alternative for receiving text messages without having to
upgrade to NG911. We seek comment on what costs, other than Internet
access, a PSAP would have to incur when implementing a web browser
solution. For example, T-Mobile contends that TCS' web browser
application would require PSAPs to upgrade their CPE. Is this accurate,
and if so, what would the nature and cost of the required upgrade?
132. We also seek comment on how the web browser option should be
implemented in a multi-party environment where multiple web browser
options and applications may be available to both PSAPs and text-to-911
service providers. For example, it is possible that individual text-to-
911 service providers could offer different web browser applications to
the same PSAP, requiring the PSAP to either support all of the offered
applications or to request that the providers use a common application.
Alternatively, neighboring PSAPs could select different web browser
applications from one another, requiring a text-to-911 service provider
serving both PSAPs to support multiple applications or to request that
the PSAPs choose a common application.
133. As a practical matter, we expect that many of these issues can
be resolved through development by vendors of standards-based
interoperable web applications that enable CMRS providers,
interconnected text providers, and PSAPs to choose single-source
solutions rather than having to support multiple solutions.
Nevertheless, we seek comment on how such issues should be resolved
where CMRS providers, interconnected text providers, and PSAPs cannot
agree on a common web browser solution. Specifically, if the PSAP
chooses to receive text messages via web-based delivery, under what
circumstances should CMRS or interconnected text providers be obligated
to accommodate the PSAP's choice of web browser application? If the
PSAP uses a service provider (``text service provider'') to render text
messages to a web browser, as appears likely based on the service
trials, a problem would arise only if two CMRS or third-party text
providers use different service providers on their end to route text-
to-911 messages. In that scenario, we proposed to allow the PSAP to
designate its text service provider as the recipient of text messages
under two conditions. First, the PSAP text service provider must accept
text messages using industry-standard protocols, such as the NENA i3
standard. Second, the PSAP text service provider must not charge the
CMRS or interconnected text provider a fee for delivering such
messages. We seek comment on this proposal.
(ii) Text-to-Voice Gateway Centers
134. Under this option, a PSAP would receive text messages via a
gateway center where emergency-trained telecommunicators would
translate between text and voice. The gateway center would operate in a
manner similar to a telematics call center of the kind that telematics
providers such as OnStar use to handle emergency calls from their
subscribers and transmit such calls to 911. Telematics providers use
cell-site location to determine the caller's location, match the
location to the associated PSAP, and then use VoIP-based routing to
connect with the PSAP over its 911 trunks. Intrado has proposed a
similar solution for delivery of text messages through a gateway.
135. Some commenters express concerns about implementing a gateway
approach. T-Mobile notes that ``a national SMS relay center does not
exist today, and would have to be created and funded, which also cannot
be accomplished rapidly.'' Sprint submits that Intrado's proposal
``would require the installation of extensive infrastructure to adapt
wireless networks to the solution. Whether this proposal could
ultimately be successful nationwide as an interim text-to-911 solution
cannot be gauged, since testing has been very limited to date.''
136. We seek comment on the feasibility of establishing one or more
gateway centers for translation and transmission of text messages to
PSAPs. What are the potential costs of implementing this approach, and
how would such costs be allocated? Are CMRS providers or vendors
offering text-to-911 services likely to develop and offer a gateway
option to non-NG911-capable PSAPs? Are non-NG911-capable PSAPs likely
to choose this option over the web browser or TTY-based delivery
options if it is available?
137. We also seek comment on how best to ensure that text-to-voice
translation offered as part of the gateway option does not lead to
harmful delays in communication between the sender and the PSAP. We
anticipate that with proper certification and training,
telecommunicators will be able to handle these responsibilities
efficiently and professionally with a minimum of delay. We also
anticipate that as an increasing number of PSAPs become capable of
accepting IP-based text, the number of 911 text messages that will
require text-to-voice translation will decrease, though text-to-voice
or text-to-TTY (see below) may continue to be necessary until all PSAPs
have been upgraded.
(iii) Text-to-TTY Translation
138. Under this option, text messages would be converted into TTY
calls that the PSAP would receive over its existing TTY facilities.
Since all PSAPs already have TTY capability, this is potentially
[[Page 1817]]
a very low-cost solution that can be deployed relatively quickly.
Moreover, this solution supports direct communication between the
sender and the PSAP.
139. A number of commenters express support for this option.
Neustar contends that using TTY to transmit SMS-originated text
messages is a viable interim solution that could ``bridge the gap''
before and during the transition to NG911. Neustar notes that ``almost
all mobile phones are SMS capable but cannot do TTY and almost all
PSAPs [are] TTY capable but cannot handle SMS.'' Neustar further
asserts that this option could be implemented at minimal cost because
``carriers would only need to make small investments in providing cell
ID query mechanisms where they are not already deployed for itinerate
use, and PSAPs should be able to handle text-to-911 using their
existing TTY equipment.'' Verizon Wireless and TCS have stated that
they intend to permit PSAPs that lack Internet connectivity to receive
text messages using this approach.
140. On the other hand, some commenters state that TTY is an
outdated technology that could be susceptible to errors in an automated
text-to-TTY translation process. T-Mobile states that TTYs ``are not
sized for general public use'' and ``present their own technical
problems.'' T-Mobile also contends that investment in TTYs would be a
dead end investment, that TTYs are asynchronous and use Baudot tones,
and that the half-duplex nature of TTYs can lead to messages being
garbled if the texting party and PSAP call taker send messages over the
top of one another. INdigital submits that ``using the TTY protocol
with a 1% total character error rate * * * imposes a technical
requirement that is nearly impossible to meet.'' T-Mobile asserts that
``many PSAPs have a limited number of TTY-equipped answering stations
[and that] the capital investment required to handle the much larger
volume of messages that would result from a general public SMS-to-911
system could be substantial for cash-strapped PSAPs.'' APCO adds that
PSAPs ``us[ing] standalone TTY devices * * * will face additional
challenges if the volume of calls to these legacy devices increase[s]
dramatically.''
141. We seek comment on the feasibility and potential costs and
benefits of making the text-to-TTY approach available as a text
delivery option for CMRS providers, interconnected text providers, and
PSAPs. Given the age and technical limitations of the PSAPs' existing
TTY equipment, are PSAPs capable of handling a volume of text messages
transmitted over TTY from the general public that could be much larger
than the low current volume of TTY 911 traffic? Could the technical
problems associated with TTYs result in translation errors? Are there
measures that could be taken to improve the capacity and reliability of
TTY equipment to handle text-to-911? Are larger PSAPs likely to make
use of TTYs to receive text-to-911 messages, compared to the other
options discussed earlier? Do most PSAPs have stand-alone TTY devices
or are these more likely to be built into the call taker equipment and
would thus be able to handle a larger text volume?
(iv) State/Regional Approach
142. Under this option, a state or regional 911 authority could
designate a NG911-capable PSAP to receive and aggregate 911 text
messages over a large region served by multiple non-NG911-capable
PSAPs, such as a county, a multi-county region, or an entire state. The
NG911-capable PSAP would exchange text messages with the caller and
then communicate by voice with the non-text-capable PSAP that serves
the caller's location. This approach is being applied in the Black Hawk
County, Iowa text-to-911 trial, where the Black Hawk County PSAP
accepts text messages from any i-Wireless user located in the state,
thus acting as a gateway for other PSAPs in the state.
143. We seek comment on this approach. In general, allowing 911
authorities to aggregate handling of text messages through a single
PSAP on a statewide or regional basis could accelerate the availability
of text-to-911 and lead to cost savings in its implementation. This
approach would also minimize the operational and technological impact
of text-to-911 for non-text-capable PSAPs. However, relaying text
messages from the designated PSAP to other PSAPs in the state or region
could lead to delay in responding to emergency text as compared to
emergency voice calls. We seek comment on what measures, if any, could
reduce the risk of such delay.
c. Notification of PSAP Acceptance and Delivery Method
144. In order for CMRS and interconnected text providers to deliver
and PSAPs to receive emergency texts under the framework proposed in
this Further Notice, a mechanism will be needed for each PSAP to notify
providers (or their text-to-911 vendors) that it is prepared to accept
text messages and indicating the delivery option it has chosen. In the
Notice, the Commission sought comment on the possibility of developing
a centralized routing database or databases that would identify which
PSAPs are accepting text-to-911 messages and the routing a delivery
method selected by each PSAP. The Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement does not
specify a specific notification procedure; however, it defines a
``valid request'' for text-to-911 service as one in which ``the
requesting PSAP represents that it is technically ready to receive 911
text messages in the format requested,'' and ``the appropriate local or
State 911 service governing authority has specifically authorized the
PSAP to accept and, by extension, the signatory service provider to
provide, text-to-911 service (and such authorization is not subject to
dispute).''
145. In its comments, Bandwidth.com proposes a gateway architecture
that includes a database of all PSAPs with their preferences for
handling text messages. This approach would arguably have efficiency
advantages because it would enable PSAPs to provide notification
regarding text delivery only once to all parties, rather than having to
inform every wireless carrier or systems service provider individually.
It would also enable providers of text-to-911 routing services to
coordinate their databases for the routing of text messages. We seek
comment on the feasibility and cost of implementing a gateway
architecture or database mechanism. If such coordination is desirable,
how can it be encouraged or facilitated? What entity should operate the
database? How should PSAPs declare their preferences? Can the registry
of preferences be implemented as an extension of the Commission's PSAP
database? Should there be a default preference to ensure that PSAPs
that do not declare their text delivery option by a certain date are
then assumed to prefer text-to-TTY delivery, since that option should
be available without further PSAP action? What constitutes a valid
notification? The Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement requires an appropriate
local or State 911 service governing authority to specifically
authorize a PSAP to accept text-to-911. Should this be a requirement
for a valid notification?
146. We seek comment on the feasibility and cost of implementing
Bandwidth.com's proposal or a similar gateway architecture or database
mechanism. This approach would arguably have efficiency advantages
because it would enable PSAPs to provide notification regarding text
delivery only once to all parties, rather than having to inform every
CMRS provider or systems service provider
[[Page 1818]]
individually. It would also enable providers of text-to-911 routing
services to coordinate their databases for routing text messages, via
the ECRF. If such coordination is desirable, how can it be encouraged
or facilitated? How should PSAPs declare their preferences? Should
there be a default preference to ensure that PSAPs that do not declare
their text delivery option by a certain date are assumed to prefer
text-to-TTY delivery, since that option should be available without
further PSAP action? Who should operate such a database? Can this
registry of preferences be implemented as an extension of the
Commission PSAP database?
12. Cost Recovery and Funding
147. While we seek to structure our proposals to keep text-to-911
costs as low as possible for both text-to-911 service providers and
PSAPs, we seek comment on whether there are additional actions that the
Commission could take to enable text-to-911 service providers and PSAPs
to recover their costs. We note that under the Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement, signatory providers agreed to provide text-to-911
``independent of their ability to recover these associated costs from
state or local governments.'' At the same time, the Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement requires that ``incremental costs for delivery of text
messages (e.g. additional trunk groups to the PSAP's premises required
to support TTY delivery) will be the responsibility of the PSAP, as
determined by individual analysis.''
a. Text Messaging Providers
148. Background. In response to the Notice, a number of CMRS
commenters express concerns over funding text-to-911. CTIA states that
``[a]ppropriate funding is a significant uncertainty given the
considerable resources that would be needed to deploy text-to-911
capabilities on a nationwide basis.'' RCA notes that ``[c]oncern for
adequate funding of future 911 systems is widespread and the increasing
burden on wireless and IP-based providers to maintain the 911 system
moving forward is troubling.''
149. Vendors contend that existing 911 cost allocation mechanisms
can be used to recover the cost to implement near-term text-to-911 for
both CMRS providers and PSAPs. Intrado asserts that the cost of every
``functional element'' of a text-to-911 solution ``can be allocated to
wireless carrier networks and PSAPs consistent with how they are
assigned today under the Commission's King County demarcation ruling.''
Intrado submits that, depending on which ``functional elements'' PSAPs
choose to implement at each stage of text-to-911, ``the cost
allocations can be changed if funding considerations dictate.''
150. Some commenters suggest that existing funding mechanisms, such
as TRS and the Universal Service Fund (USF) could be applied to recover
costs of text-to-911 implementation. Intrado contends that ``the FCC
can and should determine that SMS is eligible for TRS funding to the
same extent that IP-Relay is eligible for TRS funding.'' Bandwidth.com
submits that ``a default destination for text messages that do not have
location info must be determined'' and contends that ``[t]he TRS/VRS
and IP Relay service providers provide an excellent option for this
function given their existing role in facilitating communications
between deaf or hard-of-hearing callers and PSAP personnel.'' NASNA
also urges the Commission to consider ``[u]se of the Universal Service
Fund to assist States and regions with the costs of NG911.''
151. Discussion. We believe that existing cost recovery mechanisms
are sufficient to support implementation of text-to-911 under the
framework presented in this Further Notice. Generally, CMRS providers
recover their 911 implementation costs from their subscriber base.
Since CMRS providers already support SMS and other texting applications
in their networks, and have the ability to recover costs of those
applications from their customers, it appears that the primary
additional cost for CMRS providers to implement text-to-911 will be to
establish and support the specific routing and relay functions needed
to transmit emergency text messages to PSAPs. Additionally, under the
Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the major carriers have agreed to provide
this service independent of cost recovery from state or local
governments. The record indicates that the incremental cost would be in
the range of $4 million annually.
152. We also note that an additional source of funding to reimburse
wireless carriers for their 911 service implementation costs can be
found in certain cost recovery programs that have been established
through state legislation. Most states have reported to the Commission
that ``they used the fees or surcharges that they collected for 911/
E911 service solely to fund the provision of 911/E911 service.''
Dependent on the regulatory mechanism set forth in each statute, states
distribute funding either to the carriers directly, or to a designated
state or local entity which then reimburses carriers. For example,
Alabama provides that ``20% of the service charges collected are
retained by the [States' Wireless 9-1-1] board * * * to reimburse
wireless service providers for Phase I and II expenses.'' In
comparison, Nebraska provides that from its 911 fund ``payments are
also made directly to wireless carriers for costs incurred for the
provision of enhanced wireless 911 services.'' Though the means and
extent to which carriers receive state-prescribed reimbursement for 911
implementation costs vary from state to state, we find that such cost
recovery programs are an available and significant source of funding
that can facilitate the roll-out of text-to-911 capability. Moreover,
some states have started to apply their 911 funding to initiate
deployment of full NG911 capabilities.
153. Additionally, many states allow qualifications for cost to
include NG911-capable components for which CMRS providers might recover
their outlays. For example, Verizon and Verizon Wireless note that
``[m]any state and local governments have * * * begun reconfiguring
their funding mechanisms to facilitate NG911 deployment. We find that
such actions could provide CMRS providers with additional funding
flexibility to develop routing and gateway functions. We seek comment
on this view and request that commenters update the Commission on any
such efforts that are underway.
154. We also seek comment on whether USF funding could play a role
in cost recovery, particularly for low-cost text to-911 options such as
the TTY-based approach. Could using these funding mechanisms expedite
text-to-911 implementation? What modifications, if any, would the
Commission have to make to these funding programs to achieve those
objectives? In commenting on these approaches, commenters should
consider the Commission's recent amendment of its universal service
rules to specify that the functionalities of eligible voice telephony
services include, among other things, access to 911 and E911 emergency
services to the extent the local government in an eligible carrier's
service area has implemented 911 or E911 systems. The Commission noted
that Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs) ``will be required to
comply with NG911 rules upon implementation by state and local
governments.''
155. Finally, we seek comment on current or potential approaches
that would enable third party interconnected text providers to receive
cost recovery for obligations they may have to provide services and
offerings to implement text-to-911 capabilities. In view of the
[[Page 1819]]
funding mechanisms in several states for CMRS providers to receive cost
recovery, we seek comment on whether such state level mechanisms might
currently apply to enable interconnected text providers to receive cost
recovery in complying with text-to-911 obligations proposed in this
Further Notice. We also seek comment on whether states or other
jurisdictions provide or plan to provide cost recovery mechanisms that
could apply to interconnected text providers. We note that under our
proposed framework, the infrastructure used by interconnected text
providers would be similar to the infrastructure used by CMRS providers
for the delivery of text messages to a PSAP. We seek comment on whether
this would facilitate extending existing cost recovery mechanisms on
CMRS providers to interconnected text providers.
b. PSAPs
156. Background. A number of public safety commenters express
concerns about funding, noting that many PSAPs are subject to state and
local regulatory mandates that may affect their ability to fund the
implementation of text-to-911 service. APCO asserts that ``[m]any PSAPs
are mandated to answer 90% of their incoming 9-1-1 calls in 10 seconds
or less to qualify for receipt of wireless surcharge and other 9-1-1
funds.'' APCO further contends that ``[i]t is unlikely that these * * *
mandates will be modified to accommodate the additional time that
interim solution based text calls may have on the PSAP's ability to
meet these standards.'' APCO argues that, consequently, ``implementing
SMS text-to-9-1-1 may jeopardize some PSAPs eligibility for surcharge
funds.'' NATOA concurs, stating that ``localities could lose vital 911
fees and other funding in the event they fail to meet performance
mandates due to the increased time necessary to handle text-based
calls.'' Other commenters, however, assert that recent trials have not
substantiated the alleged increase in call-taking time due to the
characteristics of SMS text.
157. Wireless carrier commenters also question whether PSAPs have
the necessary funding to support the transition to text-to-911. The
Blooston Rural Carriers argue that ``at this point in time and for the
foreseeable future, PSAPs are simply not equipped (and will not be
equipped) to process SMS text-to-911 transmissions, and the costs
associated with the PSAP upgrades needed to achieve this capability are
apt to be great.'' Verizon and Verizon Wireless assert that ``many
PSAPs will need to secure funding sources, all will need time to
upgrade their own networks and facilities and train personnel, and all
will need to educate consumers on where NG911 is available. * * *.''
Verizon and Verizon Wireless further submit that ``the Commission
should avoid mandates for short-term solutions that would force NG911
to compete with SMS-based solutions for PSAP and service provider
resources.'' 4G Americas cites the ``[s]carce funding for PSAP NG911
upgrades [a]s a major concern'' and argues that ``[it] would do little
good to mandate carrier near-term deployment of technologies that would
require massive investments by PSAPs or require a complete overhaul of
existing emergency communications systems.''
158. In view of perceived funding difficulties, both public safety
commenters and CMRS providers advocate a regional or state-level
approach to lower costs and generate economies of scale in implementing
near-term text-to-911 as well as facilitating a transition to NG911.
CTIA contends that ``[a] statewide approach to NG911 deployment will
encourage wireless service providers and PSAPs to coordinate their
efforts to deploy requested services in a reasonable and efficient
manner and mitigate public confusion regarding the capabilities
available to a local PSAP.'' Verizon and Verizon Wireless submit that
``[a] statewide approach provides a bright-line mechanism that is
consistent with funding mechanisms, which are generally governed at the
state level * * *.'' Verizon and Verizon Wireless refer to a ``current
trend in state governments toward greater PSAP consolidation and
statewide coordination of NG911 efforts.'' King County notes that ``it
may not be feasible to fund the upgrades necessary for NG911 at the
state's 64 PSAPs'' and that ``[t]he State E911 Office and the NG911
Subcommittee have developed a plan for the centralization of equipment
at various hubs throughout the state that will serve multiple PSAPs in
order to reduce equipment upgrade costs.'' Verizon and Verizon Wireless
remark that ``[i]t is not necessary that every jurisdiction within a
state be NG911 capable prior to a service provider's initiation of
service within the state.'' RCA adds that ``the current economic
climate and need for financial restraint make consolidation of PSAPs an
essential part of the transition to NG911'' and that ``[c]onsolidation
is one of the most important preliminary steps on the path to
widespread NG911 deployment.''
159. Further, NENA contends that ``[i]t will prove most efficient
if requests for text service originate from these larger units,
reducing costs for both the public and the providers called upon to
provide service.'' NENA cautions, however, ``that 9-1-1 remains * * *
[a local service] that, in many states, is provided by small local
agencies below the county level with little or no higher level
coordination or oversight.'' ``[T]o maintain the autonomy to which 9-1-
1 system operators have become accustomed,'' NENA suggests that the
Commission ``refrain from mandating a regional or state-wide approach
to system readiness showings, and instead make such aggregated showings
optional, at the election of the states.''
160. Discussion. PSAPs generally pay for their 911 costs from state
and local revenues generated by monthly 911 fees that CMRS providers
collect from their subscribers. Wireless carriers argue that cost
recovery regulations in many jurisdictions are inadequate to meet PSAP
funding needs for text-to-911. Verizon and Verizon Wireless note that
``[s]ome jurisdictions impose significant restrictions on use of 911-
related fees or taxes by limiting the use of such monies for
traditional local exchange and commercial mobile radio services, or
imposing explicit restrictions on the types of equipment and services
that may be purchased.'' Verizon and Verizon Wireless add that
``[s]tate and local jurisdictions that face funding constraints may, if
given a choice between a costly SMS-based solution versus a more robust
IP-enabled NG911 technology, opt for the former.'' Although ``a
particular jurisdiction [could] fund both direct SMS and NG911
solutions, such an outcome could result in even higher fees imposed on
consumers with marginal additional public safety benefit.''
161. As discussed above, we propose several options that consider
the disparities in PSAPs' current technical capabilities and that
enable non-NG911-capable PSAPs to handle texts without significant cost
or upgrades. For instance, both the Web delivery and the TTY-
translation options is a low cost alternative because PSAPs already
have TTY capability. While this option employs an IP-gateway to
facilitate routing functions compared to the traditional relay function
of TTY/TDD, we believe that, in view of the relatively low cost to
PSAPs to implement TTY-translation-based text-to-911, existing funding
mechanisms can serve to defray the costs. Similarly, PSAPs that choose
the gateway center option can limit costs by using already-trained CAs
to translate between text and voice.
162. Moreover, contrary to Verizon and Verizon Wireless' assertion
that
[[Page 1820]]
funding for interim text-to-911 solutions would adversely affect the
resources available to support a transition to full NG911 capabilities,
we believe that the low cost options discussed above constitute a
reasonable and cost efficient alternative to resolving possible
limitations in funding at the state or local level. Additionally, we
note that under the current Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, PSAPs would be
responsible for their incremental costs for delivery of text messages.
We seek comment on this view.
163. Based on our proposal to offer PSAPs an array of text-to-911
delivery options, including options that entail very limited cost, we
believe that existing funding mechanisms constitute a sufficient
resource to implement text-to-911 within our proposed time frame. We
seek comment on this approach. We also seek comment on whether these
funding mechanisms could be applied to other IP-based component
upgrades. If not, what modifications need to occur? Are there actions
the Commission could take to encourage or facilitate those
modifications at the state or regional level? We invite comment on
approaches that the Commission could pursue to encourage the states or
regional entities to address such changes in funding to incentivize
deploying the necessary text-to-911 upgrades within the proposed
timeframe.
13. Liability Protection
164. Background. In general, liability protection for provision of
911 service is governed by state law and has traditionally been applied
only to LECs. However, Congress has expanded the scope of state
liability protection by requiring states to provide parity in the
degree of protection provided to traditional and non-traditional 911
providers, and more recently, to providers of NG911 service. In 2008,
Congress enacted the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act
(Net 911 Act), which provides that a ``wireless carrier, IP-enabled
voice service provider, or other emergency communications provider * *
* shall have'' the same liability protection as a local exchange
carrier under federal and state law. In February 2012, Congress further
extended state liability protection to providers of NG911 service in
the Next Generation 9-1-1 Advancement Act of 2012. The Next Generation
911 Advancement Act provides that ``a provider or user of Next
Generation 9-1-1 services * * * shall have immunity and protection from
liability under Federal and State law [to the extent provided under
section 4 of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of
1999],'' with respect to ``the release of subscriber information
related to emergency calls or emergency services,'' ``the use or
provision of 9-1-1 services, E9-1-1 services, or Next Generation 9-1-1
services,'' and ``other matters related to 9-1-1 services, E9-1-1
services, or Next Generation 9-1-1 services.''
165. In the Notice, which was released prior to the Next Generation
911 Advancement Act, the Commission asked whether the liability
provisions in the NET 911 Act embrace the full range of technologies
and service providers that will be involved in the provisioning of
NG911 services. The Notice also asked whether the Commission has the
authority to extend liability protection to entities involved in the
provisioning of NG911 services or whether Congressional action is
necessary.
166. In response to the Notice, numerous commenters argue that
liability protection is essential as part of any extension of 911
requirements to include text. Commenters also assert that the lack of
express liability protection for NG911 has hampered the deployment of
NG911 networks. Commenters also argue that federal law requiring parity
in state law protection does not adequately protect 911 and NG911
service providers because the scope of underlying liability protection
is dictated by state law and varies from state to state. AT&T, for
example, argues that ``liability protection presently provided under
the NET 911 Act is insufficient because it is tied to the protection
afforded under various state laws and, often, a local exchange
carrier's tariff.'' Motorola argues that ``[n]ational consistency in
liability protection will be essential to encouraging investment and
promoting a smooth NG911 transition.''
167. Discussion. We recognize that adequate liability protection is
needed for PSAPs, CMRS providers, third party interconnected service
providers, and vendors to proceed with implementation of text-to-911 as
contemplated in this Further Notice. The recent passage of the Next
Generation 911 Advancement Act has significantly expanded the scope of
liability protection and potentially resolved some of the issues raised
by commenters by making clear that states must provide the same level
of protection for NG911 as for traditional 911 and E911. We also note
that under the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the four major wireless
carriers have committed to deploy text-to-911 capability throughout
their nationwide networks without any precondition requiring additional
liability protection other than the protection that is provided by
current state and Federal law. Nevertheless, we seek comment on whether
there are additional steps the Commission could take--consistent with
our regulatory authority--to provide additional liability protection to
text-to-911 service providers. We also seek comment on whether the
combined parity protection afforded by the NET 911 Act and the Next
Generation 911 Advancement Act extends to all providers of text-to-911
service, regardless of whether such service is provided using pre-NG911
or NG911 mechanisms. We seek comment on whether providers of text-to-
911 service have sufficient liability protection under current law to
provide text-to-911 services to their customers, or whether additional
protection may still be needed or desirable.
C. Legal Authority
168. We seek comment on the Commission's authority to apply the
automated error message and more comprehensive text-to-911 rules
proposed herein to both CMRS providers and other entities that offer
interconnected text messaging services (including third-party providers
of ``over-the- top'' text messaging applications). In doing so, we
incorporate herein the portions of our 2011 Notice regarding the
Commission's authority to adopt text-to-911 rules. We note that, in
response to our 2011 Notice, numerous parties addressed the
Commission's authority to adopt text-to-911 rules under the CVAA, Title
III, and our ancillary authority. Since then, we have modified our
proposals and taken into account recent developments regarding the
deployment of text-to-911 offerings, including the recent Carrier-NENA-
APCO Agreement.
169. We now ask parties to refresh the record on the legal
authority issues and to address their comments to the particular rules
being proposed herein. Specifically, we ask commenters to address the
Commission's authority under the CVAA to apply the proposed rules to
this circumstance, and in particular to other entities that offer
interconnected text messaging service. In this regard, we seek comment
on how the Commission's ``authority to promulgate regulations to
implement the recommendations proposed by'' EAAC applies to this
circumstance. Would the Commission's decision to adopt the proposed
text-to-911 rules implement EAAC recommendation P4.1, titled ``Interim
Text Access,'' or recommendation T1.2, titled ``Interim Mobile Text
Solution''? Are there other
[[Page 1821]]
EAAC recommendations relevant to our authority under Section 615c(g)?
We also invite comment on how the Commission's authority to promulgate
``any other regulations, technical standards, protocols, and procedures
as are necessary to achieve reliable, interoperable communication that
ensures access by individuals with disabilities to an Internet
protocol-enabled emergency network, where achievable and technically
feasible'' applies to these proposals, and in particular to other
entities that offer interconnected text messaging service.
170. In addition to the CVAA, we ask commenters to address the
Commission's authority under Title III, including our authority under
Sections 301, 303, 307, 309, and 316, to adopt the rules proposed
herein. We note that, when analyzing our legal authority in the 2011
Notice, we stated our ``belie[f] that we have well-established legal
authority under * * * Title III provisions to take the regulatory and
non-regulatory measures described [t]herein that would apply to users
of spectrum.'' Since then, the D.C. Circuit provided additional
guidance regarding the scope of our Title III authority in Cellco
Partnership v. FCC. We now seek additional comment on our Title III
authority in light of this decision.
171. Among other points, we seek comment on whether Title III
grants the Commission authority to apply the proposed rules to third-
party interconnected text providers and, if so, which specific
provisions of Title III apply to them. Does the Commission's Title III
authority over those entities depend on how they offer their service?
For example, does the FCC's Title III authority over them turn on
whether the entity holds a Commission's license or other authorization,
and, if so, whether such authorization is integral to that entity's
interconnected texting service? Do any third-party interconnected text
messaging providers hold any such authorizations? We also ask
commenters to address the Commission's authority to impose regulations
on CMRS providers that indirectly affect third-party providers. For
example, does the Commission have authority to require CMRS providers
to take steps to prevent the use of certain third-party applications
that do not support text-to-911? If so, would such steps be consistent
with the Commission's open platform requirements for the 700 MHz C
Block and other agency precedent?
172. We also ask commenters to address the Commission's ability to
rely on its ancillary authority to adopt the rules proposed herein. The
Commission may act pursuant to its ancillary authority when ``(1) the
Commission's general jurisdictional grant under Title I [of the
Communications Act] covers the regulated subject and (2) the
regulations are reasonably ancillary to the Commission's effective
performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities.'' We ask
commenters to discuss both prongs of this test. Would the Commission's
decision to adopt the proposed rules be ancillary to certain Title III
provisions, the CVAA, or other statutory provisions? Is application of
the proposed rules to all providers of interconnected text-messaging
services necessary to avoid consumer confusion or achieve the public
safety benefits associated with applying such rules to CMRS providers?
We seek comment on these questions.
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Ex Parte Presentations
173. The proceedings initiated by this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceedings in
accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex
parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) list
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may
provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior
comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page
and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in
lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
B. Comment Filing Procedures
174. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments in response to this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
Paper Filers: Parties that choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
C. Accessible Formats
175. To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to
[[Page 1822]]
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at
202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
176. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5
U.S.C. sec. 604, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document.
The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B. Written public comments are
requested in the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with
the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to this Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as set forth on the first page of this
document, and have a separate and distinct heading designating them as
responses to the IRFA.
E. Paperwork Reduction Analysis
177. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains proposed
new information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general
public and OMB to comment on the information collection requirements
contained in this document, as required by PRA. In addition, pursuant
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific
comment on how we might ``further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
V. Ordering Clauses
178. It is further ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 10,
201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309,
309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 615a, 615a-1, 615b, 615c(a), 615c(c),
615c(g), and 615(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.
sec. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302,
303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332,
615a, 615a-1, 615b, 615c, 615c(c), 615c(g), and 615(c)(1) that this
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
179. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20
Communications common carriers.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 20 as follows:
PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 20 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214,
222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309,
309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 615a, 615a-1, 615b, 615c, 615c(c),
615c(g), and 615(c)(1).
0
2. Section 20.18 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 20.18 911 Service.
* * * * *
(n) Text-messaging for 911. CMRS providers subject to this section
and third party interconnected text providers as defined in paragraph
(n)(6) of this section shall comply with the following requirements:
(1) CMRS providers subject to this section shall provide an
automated error text message that notifies consumers attempting to send
text messages to 911 in areas where text-to-911 is unavailable or in
other instances where the carrier is unable to transmit the text to the
PSAP serving the texting party's location for reasons including, but
not limited to, network congestion, the inability of the PSAP to accept
such messages, or otherwise. The requirements of this paragraph only
apply when the CMRS provider (or the CMRS provider's text-to-911
vendor) has direct control over the transmission of the text message.
The automatic notification must include information on how to contact
the PSAP. CMRS providers shall meet the requirements of this paragraph
no later than June 30, 2013.
(2) No later than May 15, 2014, CMRS providers shall offer their
subscribers the capability to send 911 text messages to the appropriate
PSAP from any text-capable wireless handset.
(i) CMRS providers must provide their subscribers with at least one
pre-installed text-to-911 option per mobile device model under a CMRS
provider's direct control. The pre-installed text-to-911 option must be
capable of operating over the provider's entire network coverage area.
Where a consumer has obtained the device from an unaffiliated third
party and uses the device on a CMRS provider's network, CMRS providers
must offer a text-to-911 application that the consumer can load on to
the device.
(ii) To meet the requirement of paragraph (n)(2) of this section,
CMRS providers may select any reliable method or methods for text
routing and delivery. For example, CMRS providers may use Short Message
Service (SMS), mobile-switched, or Internet Protocol (IP)-based methods
for text routing and delivery.
(3) 911 is the designated short code for text messages sent to
PSAPs.
(4) CMRS providers must route all 911 text messages to the
appropriate PSAP, based on the cell sector to which the mobile device
is connected. In complying with this requirement, CMRS providers must
route text messages to the same PSAP to which they currently route 911
calls, unless the responsible local or state entity designates a
different PSAP to receive 911 text messages and informs the carrier of
that change.
(5) Roaming. When a consumer is roaming, both the home and visiting
network operators must cooperate to support the delivery of the text to
the appropriate PSAP serving the sender's location.
(6) Third party interconnected text providers. (i) All third-party
interconnected text application providers that offer the capability for
consumers to send to and receive text messages from text-capable mobile
telephone numbers shall send an automated error text message when a
user of the application attempts to send an emergency text in an area
where text-to-911 is not supported or the provider is otherwise unable
to transmit the text to the PSAP for reasons including, but not limited
to, network congestion, the inability of the PSAP to accept such
messages, or otherwise. The automatic error notification must include
information on how to contact the PSAP. Third party interconnected text
providers subject to this paragraph shall meet the above requirements
no later than June 30, 2013.
(ii) No later than May 15, 2014, all third party interconnected
text providers that provide the capability for consumers to send to and
receive text messages from text-capable mobile telephone numbers must
offer the capability described in paragraph (n)(2) of this section
during time periods when the mobile device is connected to a CMRS
network.
[FR Doc. 2013-00159 Filed 1-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P